Thai Govt Sincerity On Protecting The Monarchy Questioned

[geriatrickid]

The prime minister was absent during the afternoon session of the meeting.

One of the first sessions of her new government, and a rather important one at that, AND SHE'S NOT THERE???

No Prime Minister anywhere sits in the house for the entire session. They have work to do. When was the last time the PM of the UK, or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or India ever sat in the house the whole day? One of the meetings that the PM attended in the afternoon was on the response to the floods. I think that is more important She did not need to sit there and listen to the other speeches. Get real. She has to take care of a country and that means rolling up her sleeves and geting to work which is exactly what she did.

It's the FIRST session, where they are telling the country what their policies are! That's not important enough for her to be there?

The PM was present for the declaration of the elected government's policies. There was no need for her to sit through the lengthy political speeches that followed. Again, I ask, what PM spends his/her whole day in the house for something like this? Did Mr. Abhisit remain in the house for the whole session when he was PM? No, he did not. The PM is not expected to remain. As I stated, the flood response was a pressing issue and she had to attend the meeting.

[tominbkk]

Don't make the accusations surreptitiously or otherwise.

Please cease and desist from questioning people's loyalty. You may not like the redshirts, but they have a love for the nation apparently do not understand. Because you do not understand, that does not mean they do not have it. Thank you.

Haha Geriatricman, spin spin spin those plates! hee hee

[geriatrickid]

Don't make the accusations surreptitiously or otherwise.

Please cease and desist from questioning people's loyalty. You may not like the redshirts, but they have a love for the nation apparently do not understand. Because you do not understand, that does not mean they do not have it. Thank you.

Haha Geriatricman, spin spin spin those plates! hee hee

Not a spin. I have been in the homes of some redshirts and from what I saw, there was respect and appreciation demonstrated on the subject at hand. For those people that have any concern for the preservation of the national parks and forests, there is a great deal of respect for the efforts made to protect those national assets.For farmers that are dependent upon scarce water resources, there is appreciation for the efforts to protect the nation's water basins. It may be hard for the city folks to understand that, but the rural folk live it every day. One can disagree with one's father and even argue, but the love and respect remains, especially in Thailand.

[chaoyang]

Yup, I agree with others.

The same old card ... but the times they are a-changin'.

[hanuman1]

The veteran politician also insisted that no people in the ruling party supported the idea of amending Article 112 of the Penal Code regarding lese majeste.

That's a pity.

But I do remember Yingluck mentioning that was one of her plans. Another back track?

Err, right....so if they didn't backtrack you would criticize them for wanting to make the amendment. If they were to backtrack, you criticize them for backtracking.

We get it - you dislike the PTP - but since your only aim here is to criticize even diammetrically opposed positions they may take on a given matter it is clear that you have no intention of engaging in debate. You're only here to spread your personal propaganda. Whybother indeed.

[Buchholz]

No Prime Minister anywhere sits in the house for the entire session. They have work to do. When was the last time the PM of the UK, or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or India ever sat in the house the whole day? One of the meetings that the PM attended in the afternoon was on the response to the floods. I think that is more important She did not need to sit there and listen to the other speeches. Get real. She has to take care of a country and that means rolling up her sleeves and geting to work which is exactly what she did.

It's the FIRST session, where they are telling the country what their policies are! That's not important enough for her to be there?

The PM was present for the declaration of the elected government's policies. There was no need for her to sit through the lengthy political speeches that followed. Again, I ask, what PM spends his/her whole day in the house for something like this? Did Mr. Abhisit remain in the house for the whole session when he was PM? No, he did not.

For those with less faulty memories, yes, actually he did stay for the whole first session... or at least he did so until the session was closed because of a walkout of Parliament by nearly 200 Pheu Thai Party MP's. Coincidentally, the first session was delayed and took place at the Foreign Ministry instead of Parliament after a pro-Thaksin Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) mob prevented MPs entering parliament for two days.

.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[whybother]

The veteran politician also insisted that no people in the ruling party supported the idea of amending Article 112 of the Penal Code regarding lese majeste.

That's a pity.

But I do remember Yingluck mentioning that was one of her plans. Another back track?

Err, right....so if they didn't backtrack you would criticize them for wanting to make the amendment. If they were to backtrack, you criticize them for backtracking.

We get it - you dislike the PTP - but since your only aim here is to criticize even diammetrically opposed positions they may take on a given matter it is clear that you have no intention of engaging in debate. You're only here to spread your personal propaganda. Whybother indeed.

I have never agreed with this particular law, and I have never criticized (and have actually applauded) PTP's promises to change this law.

I am quite disappointed that they have backtracked on this, particularly since they have made such a big fuss on it's use over the last few years.

[hanuman1]

That's a pity.

But I do remember Yingluck mentioning that was one of her plans. Another back track?

Err, right....so if they didn't backtrack you would criticize them for wanting to make the amendment. If they were to backtrack, you criticize them for backtracking.

We get it - you dislike the PTP - but since your only aim here is to criticize even diammetrically opposed positions they may take on a given matter it is clear that you have no intention of engaging in debate. You're only here to spread your personal propaganda. Whybother indeed.

I have never agreed with this particular law, and I have never criticized (and have actually applauded) PTP's promises to change this law.

I am quite disappointed that they have backtracked on this, particularly since they have made such a big fuss on it's use over the last few years.

Well in that case, let me offer you some potential hope. As I read it:

The veteran politician also insisted that no people in the ruling party supported the idea of amending Article 112 of the Penal Code regarding lese majeste.

it seemed to mean that he was insisting that no people in the PTP should support the idea, the suggestion being that some of them did. This kind of fits better with the overall thrust of what he was going on about I think. Possibly 'lost in translation' casualty No.12,833.

Cheers.

[sungod]

[

I have seen many derogatory statements left in chalk on the roads at Democracy monument and Ratchaprasong after mass red shirt rallies. Who do you suppose wrote these?

Because someone wrote offensive phrases down, that means all those attending the events are guilty? Really? Your views on collective blame are a throwback to the 1940's.

So none of the many staunch supporters thought it appropriate to stop/report the perpetrators? It's OK to sit back and watch a crime committed? Come on, get real, the roads have been covered in the stuff before and no one has stepped in.

[Pattel]

The prime minister was absent during the afternoon session of the meeting.

One of the first sessions of her new government, and a rather important one at that, AND SHE'S NOT THERE???

No, she had to go and phone her brother.

[brianb1944]

The prime minister was absent during the afternoon session of the meeting.

One of the first sessions of her new government, and a rather important one at that, AND SHE'S NOT THERE???

Not up to taking the flack, let the expendables try to refute the irrefutable.

[SAffer]

The prime minister was absent during the afternoon session of the meeting.

One of the first sessions of her new government, and a rather important one at that, AND SHE'S NOT THERE???

On the phone to her brother?

I have it on good authority she had a dodgy curry for lunch and spent the afternoon in the bog.

'gang curry', enjoy a bit of it myself... (Thai meaning implied)

[hansnl]

the government could not dismiss the fact that red shirts were involved in insulting the monarchy.

Have never seen any condemnation of those involved Red Shirts by the Pheu Thai Party.

Have never seen any condemnation of those involved Red Shirts by the Red Shirt Leaders.

Have never seen any condemnation of those involved Red Shirts by anyone associated with the Red Shirts.

,

heheeh are you holding your breath waiting on condemnation, getting a bit blue there old boy

McCarthy, would have seen the lot of those Red Shirts in prison...we call red shirts same as these, COMMUNISTS in our own countries... a scourge in any society...

Oh dear, here we go.

The common people want a better life;

They wear red;

So it is simple, they must be communists.

In your country, maybe, a common man wanting a better life, and (wrongfully) connecting himself to a group of polticians allegedly fighting for the good of the poor, will be called communists.

But please keep that idea to your own country, The US of A, I presume?

Other countries have different, or maybe even better, ideas about politicaL definitions?

So please cancel your words "our own countries", and change that into USA.

[lannarebirth]

The veteran politician also insisted that no people in the ruling party supported the idea of amending Article 112 of the Penal Code regarding lese majeste.

That's a pity.

But I do remember Yingluck mentioning that was one of her plans. Another back track?

Err, right....so if they didn't backtrack you would criticize them for wanting to make the amendment. If they were to backtrack, you criticize them for backtracking.

We get it - you dislike the PTP - but since your only aim here is to criticize even diammetrically opposed positions they may take on a given matter it is clear that you have no intention of engaging in debate. You're only here to spread your personal propaganda. Whybother indeed.

I have never agreed with this particular law, and I have never criticized (and have actually applauded) PTP's promises to change this law.

I am quite disappointed that they have backtracked on this, particularly since they have made such a big fuss on it's use over the last few years.

The only political leader that has ever vowed to overhaul lese majeste laws was Abhisit. He said the electorate would need to give his party an outright majority to do so however.

[jayboy]

The only political leader that has ever vowed to overhaul lese majeste laws was Abhisit. He said the electorate would need to give his party an outright majority to do so however.

Ironic isn't it given that abuse of the law under his premiership reached an all time high, to a point where even understanding allies like the USA have spoken out against it.I guess Abhisit on this issue as on several others was speaking out of two sides of his mouth.

[lannarebirth]

The only political leader that has ever vowed to overhaul lese majeste laws was Abhisit. He said the electorate would need to give his party an outright majority to do so however.

Ironic isn't it given that abuse of the law under his premiership reached an all time high, to a point where even understanding allies like the USA have spoken out against it.I guess Abhisit on this issue as on several others was speaking out of two sides of his mouth.

Are you suggesting that Abhisit personally charged people with lese majeste? Had people charged with lese majeste at his behest? Could have got any traction at all in modifying this law given his backstabbing coalition? He's on record for what he would do under a given circumstance. Is anyone else?

[rixalex]

Ironic isn't it given that abuse of the law under his premiership reached an all time high, to a point where even understanding allies like the USA have spoken out against it.I guess Abhisit on this issue as on several others was speaking out of two sides of his mouth.

Is it at all possible that the greater abuse of the law, was in fact simply the law being exercised more frequently (abusively or otherwise) in response to a greater number of people breaking it a greater number of times? Not that that is to excuse it, but it would explain it and put it in context.

Out of context perhaps though suits and serves a certain agenda better.

[jayboy]

Are you suggesting that Abhisit personally charged people with lese majeste? Had people charged with lese majeste at his behest? Could have got any traction at all in modifying this law given his backstabbing coalition? He's on record for what he would do under a given circumstance. Is anyone else?

He made sensible noises but did nothing to stop shocking abuse which increased exponentially during his time in power.A cynic might argue that he saw political benefits in LM's abuse.Generally his record on the matter was deplorable.

[Oberkommando]

Ironic isn't it given that abuse of the law under his premiership reached an all time high, to a point where even understanding allies like the USA have spoken out against it.I guess Abhisit on this issue as on several others was speaking out of two sides of his mouth.

Is it at all possible that the greater abuse of the law, was in fact simply the law being exercised more frequently (abusively or otherwise) in response to a greater number of people breaking it a greater number of times? Not that that is to excuse it, but it would explain it and put it in context.

Out of context perhaps though suits and serves a certain agenda better.

Not likely given that overall media censorship increased dramatically under Abhisit and Thailand's press freedom rankings plummeted to all time lows. The Computer Crime Act introduced in 2007 is one of the main reasons for the massive increase in LM cases since its inception and during Abhisit's regime. He and his government were utterly complicit in the process since they took power.

"Since the enforcement of the Computer Crime Act in July 2007, there have been 185 cases in relations to the CCA up to July 2010. There have been 117 court orders to block access to 74,686 URLs."

http://ilaw.or.th/node/632

More (essential reading IMO):

The statistics show that in 2007 there was one court order to block 2 URLs. In 2008, there were 13 court orders to block 2,071 URLs. In 2009, there were 64 orders to block 28,705 URLs. And in 2010, there were 39 court orders to block 43,908 URLs. Altogether within three years after the enforcement of the CCA, there have been 117 court orders to block access to 74,686 URLs. The reasons of the order for the blocking of websites can be ranked as follows: 1) lèse majesté content (57,330 URLs); 2) pornographic content (16,740 URLs); 3) information about abortion (357 URLs); 4) content related to gambling (246 URLs); 5) other reasons such as blasphemy, phishing/pharming (making fake websites), and even websites with content seeing the government differently on issues related to the dispersal of protesters thus were deemed to create chaos and division within the public.

Apart from blocking websites using court orders under the CCA, state officials were also discovered to be using other methods, for example, sending informal letters to internet providers asking for cooperation. Most importantly, actions taken by officials under the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations (Emergency Decree) show that websites that have been blocked under orders of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations (CRES) are in the tens of thousands. There are many cases where the CRES has ordered the closure of websites by citing a range of IP addresses. Such actions will affect a large number of websites, including those that are lawful but happen to be in the range of the ban.

It is also noted that the courts use extremely short periods of time to look at URLs before granting orders to block access to URLs. Of 117 orders, 104 received authorisation on the very same day to block 71,765 URLs. On average, 690 URLs are blocked daily. The number of websites that were blocked doubled during the demonstrations to demand political rights.

Apart from policies to block websites and prosecute internet users and internet service providers, the government also set up “Cyber Scout” units through the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding between three ministries namely the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of Culture, to monitor the internet, and inform relevant agencies about inappropriate content. The military also has special units to create state media to counter content critical of the monarchy such as the Network of the Navy Quartermaster to Promote and Protect the Monarchy on the Internet.

[jayboy]

Is it at all possible that the greater abuse of the law, was in fact simply the law being exercised more frequently (abusively or otherwise) in response to a greater number of people breaking it a greater number of times? Not that that is to excuse it, but it would explain it and put it in context.

Out of context perhaps though suits and serves a certain agenda better.

You may have a point there, putting aside for a moment the abuse of the existing law.

It rather reinforces the view of many experts (David Dreckfuss etc) that many of the actions of those who have taken action ostensibly on behalf of the revered institution (but actually for their own selfish interests) have done untold damage.The military coup in 2006 was particularly poisonous in that regard, as I suspect future historians will agree.

[Crushdepth]

Is it at all possible that the greater abuse of the law, was in fact simply the law being exercised more frequently (abusively or otherwise) in response to a greater number of people breaking it a greater number of times? Not that that is to excuse it, but it would explain it and put it in context.

Out of context perhaps though suits and serves a certain agenda better.

You may have a point there, putting aside for a moment the abuse of the existing law.

It rather reinforces the view of many experts (David Dreckfuss etc) that many of the actions of those who have taken action ostensibly on behalf of the revered institution (but actually for their own selfish interests) have done untold damage.The military coup in 2006 was particularly poisonous in that regard, as I suspect future historians will agree.

It remains to be seen whether these matters will improve under the new administration.

[Oberkommando]

It remains to be seen whether these matters will improve under the new administration.

Judging by the debates in the Thai Parliament yesterday that is extremely unlikely to happen.

[jayboy]

Judging by the debates in the Thai Parliament yesterday that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Absolutely and over quite a wide range of issues I think the PTP led government will be surprisingly conservative.Are we perhaps seeing the Thai equivalent of the nineteenth century UK Liberal Party which in some ways was more conservative (in fiscal and surprisingly also in social matters) than its Tory opponents.Within the Liberal Party there gradually emerged a group representing the working class which eventually split off.In the PTP one can see a a more radical redshirt grouping but it's already clear they are not going to have a huge influence - not really surprising since the PTP power brokers in social class and wealth are not that much different from the opposition, more nouveaux riche perhaps.In this scenario the more radical wing of the PTP will over time become more mainstream consolidating lower middle class as well as working class support.This could take decades, particularly given the weight of Thai culture - a good thing in my view since it gives time for new ideas to be absorbed.Still this still leaves plenty of opportunities for the Democrats or their successors.A leader of genius (think Disraeli in the British context who amazingly secured a working class base) could transform their prospects.

[Crushdepth]

Judging by the debates in the Thai Parliament yesterday that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Absolutely and over quite a wide range of issues I think the PTP led government will be surprisingly conservative.Are we perhaps seeing the Thai equivalent of the nineteenth century UK Liberal Party which in some ways was more conservative (in fiscal and surprisingly also in social matters) than its Tory opponents.Within the Liberal Party there gradually emerged a group representing the working class which eventually split off.In the PTP one can see a a more radical redshirt grouping but it's already clear they are not going to have a huge influence - not really surprising since the PTP power brokers in social class and wealth are not that much different from the opposition, more nouveaux riche perhaps.In this scenario the more radical wing of the PTP will over time become more mainstream consolidating lower middle class as well as working class support.This could take decades, particularly given the weight of Thai culture - a good thing in my view since it gives time for new ideas to be absorbed.Still this still leaves plenty of opportunities for the Democrats or their successors.A leader of genius (think Disraeli in the British context who amazingly secured a working class base) could transform their prospects.

I don't think the red shirts will have the patience to wait decades. It was their blood on the floor, if PTP don't deliver (the blatant evasion on the 300 baht wage is just offensive) they may go back to the streets. Probably with a change in leadership, and considerably less well funded.

[ianf]

the government could not dismiss the fact that red shirts were involved in insulting the monarchy.

Have never seen any condemnation of those involved Red Shirts by the Pheu Thai Party.

Have never seen any condemnation of those involved Red Shirts by the Red Shirt Leaders.

Have never seen any condemnation of those involved Red Shirts by anyone associated with the Red Shirts.

,

What part of this do you not comprehend?

- Do not make any accusations about any individual's or groups' loyalty toward The Monarchy.

Don't make the accusations surreptitiously or otherwise.

Please cease and desist from questioning people's loyalty. You may not like the redshirts, but they have a love for the nation apparently do not understand. Because you do not understand, that does not mean they do not have it. Thank you.

I would not question the average red's loyalty to the Monarchy. My maid is red through and through but has pictures of the King in her home and she loves the King. What is clear is that the average red does not understand the depth of the politics they support. Mass psychology of fascism at work? I wonder, it is just a thought.

[MILT]

The prime minister was absent during the afternoon session of the meeting.

One of the first sessions of her new government, and a rather important one at that, AND SHE'S NOT THERE???

On the phone to her brother?

That's what it looked like to me as well. To be honest with all of them huddling in the doorway and the PM on the phone with a very serious look on her mug flipping her pony tail. I bet her big brother was telling her get out of the door way I and everyone can see you talking to me.

[hammered]

Judging by the debates in the Thai Parliament yesterday that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Absolutely and over quite a wide range of issues I think the PTP led government will be surprisingly conservative.Are we perhaps seeing the Thai equivalent of the nineteenth century UK Liberal Party which in some ways was more conservative (in fiscal and surprisingly also in social matters) than its Tory opponents.Within the Liberal Party there gradually emerged a group representing the working class which eventually split off.In the PTP one can see a a more radical redshirt grouping but it's already clear they are not going to have a huge influence - not really surprising since the PTP power brokers in social class and wealth are not that much different from the opposition, more nouveaux riche perhaps.In this scenario the more radical wing of the PTP will over time become more mainstream consolidating lower middle class as well as working class support.This could take decades, particularly given the weight of Thai culture - a good thing in my view since it gives time for new ideas to be absorbed.Still this still leaves plenty of opportunities for the Democrats or their successors.A leader of genius (think Disraeli in the British context who amazingly secured a working class base) could transform their prospects.

I don't think the red shirts will have the patience to wait decades. It was their blood on the floor, if PTP don't deliver (the blatant evasion on the 300 baht wage is just offensive) they may go back to the streets. Probably with a change in leadership, and considerably less well funded.

The best hope of stability in Thailand is that the PTP is enough of a real deal and does deliver. If the red shirts believe that nothing in the system works for them and they have no stake in it, things could get really messy in the medium to long term.

Thailand seems to need an ideology based two party system to form rather than a system that does as Jayboy points out rely on two different sets of elite one of which now includes the vestiges of a workers movement. If the system were ideology based it would allow the conflicts to be resolved through the ballot box, at the moment you have a situation where it seems that demand for inequalities and double standards be addressed are wrapped up in an intra-elite power struggle. When the latter is sorted out one way or another the other will not finish but things will become a lot clearer.

I have heard members of the elite actually get angry about the red shirts because they think they should be willing to wait decades for a few changes and not expect everything now. It would seem a clash is almost unavoidable if those of that view prevail although I would like to think it is a minority elite opinion.

[jayboy]

I don't think the red shirts will have the patience to wait decades. It was their blood on the floor, if PTP don't deliver (the blatant evasion on the 300 baht wage is just offensive) they may go back to the streets. Probably with a change in leadership, and considerably less well funded.

What you suggest is possible but not I think likely any time soon.Where I differ from you is that I suspect such an independent redshirt movement could become stronger not weaker.

Hypothetically it could be a disaster for Thailand.Imagine a reinvigorated redshirt movement with dynamic leadership, free of restraining influences (yes that includes Thaksin), and with a powerful popular base among Thailand's working class, lower middle class and possibly army sympathisers.A party hostile to free markets and globalisation, indifferent to the trappings of Thai social hierachy.A Venezuela Chavez type scenario isn't unthinkable.Much depends on how the economy progresses - the better things go the less likely I suppose is the prospect of this happening.However an important caveat is that social inequalities need to be addressed to prevent descent into a South American spiral.Venezuela was and is rich, but became a disaster state because the less well off majority finally lost patience with a greedy patronising (and as in Thailand an ethnically distinct) elite.

Thailand's elite needs to be inclusive and recognise/address the redshirt grievances.The alternative could be appalling.Do I see any sign this is understood? None whatsoever.

[whybother]

Police Ordered to Bust Lese Majeste Websites

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung has instructed the National Police Office to set up a task force to crack down on lese majeste websites.

Meanwhile, he has also asked the red-shirt group to respect the rights of others while demonstrating their political opinions.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said it is too early to talk about his policy directive for the National Police Office.

He said he needs two weeks before he will be able to assign policies.

In the meantime, he has instructed the Office of Information and Communication Technology to set up a task force to crack down on lese majeste websites and investigate threats against a Channel 7 reporter.

It was reported yesterday that a pro red-shirt website was publishing threats to the reporter for asking Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra contentious questions.

Chalerm went on to say he has asked red-shirt leader Kwanchai Praipana to control red-shirt supporters and Kwanchai has given his word that the situation will remain under control.

Asked about the bail requests for red-shirt members, the deputy prime minister said he will not interfere in the matter and will allow the law to take its due course.

Chalerm declined comment on the incident in which two college students were allegedly assaulted by red-shirt supporters at outside the Parliament building yesterday.

He said he did not want to become part of the conflict.

However, he said there was something dubious about the incident.

-- Tan Network 2011-08-26

I expect to see a lot of condemnation of this action by Chalerm from red shirt supporters.

[Buchholz]

a great shot of Pheu Thai Party's Chalerm that accompanied the below article:

Police Ordered to Bust Lese Majeste Websites

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung has instructed the National Police Office to set up a task force to crack down on lese majeste websites.