Thai Govt Urged To End Press Intimidation

[rixalex]

Nobody is against freedom of speech. Everyone here supports it. What people don't support is hypocrisy and spreading incorrect information.

This is not a struggle for democracy. If you think it is, you are simply naive. This is all about a struggle for power between Thaksin and the conventional power elite. That is all. Neither side in aggregate gives one whiff about democracy, and this struggle has nothing to do with democracy. I find it insulting to continually have to listen to these hypocritical tirades about democracy, when neither side wants anything of the sort. What both sides want is power. They want their corrupt politicians installed to give them advantages at the expense of everyone else in the country.

The only thing you need to decide is which side you think is worse. I know what Thaksin is. He is a truly dangerous demagogue, and probably a sociopath as well. He can not be allowed to assume control of the country, no matter what the cost.

Thailand will never be a democracy. The people don't want it. If they did, they would actually care about the rule of law and find corruption unacceptable. They don't care. The vast majority believes corruption and theft is fine as long as they are the beneficiaries. How can you have a democracy in that environment?

Let's stop pretending otherwise and be honest about what is happening. This is a struggle for power between elite groups. The people are irrelevant. Press freedom is irrelevant. Do you want Thaksin as a tyrant, or would you rather an oligarchy of conventional elites? Those are your only choices.

I choose the latter. Of course, it isn't up to me. It will be decided by those with the biggest gun.

Well surmised there.

[animatic]

Nobody is against freedom of speech. Everyone here supports it. What people don't support is hypocrisy and spreading incorrect information.

This is not a struggle for democracy. If you think it is, you are simply naive. This is all about a struggle for power between Thaksin and the conventional power elite. That is all. Neither side in aggregate gives one whiff about democracy, and this struggle has nothing to do with democracy. I find it insulting to continually have to listen to these hypocritical tirades about democracy, when neither side wants anything of the sort. What both sides want is power. They want their corrupt politicians installed to give them advantages at the expense of everyone else in the country.

The only thing you need to decide is which side you think is worse. I know what Thaksin is. He is a truly dangerous demagogue, and probably a sociopath as well. He can not be allowed to assume control of the country, no matter what the cost.

Thailand will never be a democracy. The people don't want it. If they did, they would actually care about the rule of law and find corruption unacceptable. They don't care. The vast majority believes corruption and theft is fine as long as they are the beneficiaries. How can you have a democracy in that environment?

Let's stop pretending otherwise and be honest about what is happening. This is a struggle for power between elite groups. The people are irrelevant. Press freedom is irrelevant. Do you want Thaksin as a tyrant, or would you rather an oligarchy of conventional elites? Those are your only choices.

I choose the latter. Of course, it isn't up to me. It will be decided by those with the biggest gun.

Well surmised there.

Yes, though the people are a tool used by both sides to reach their ends.

But most certainly, how each side has ACTED means more than the words they speak.

Inaction caused by ennui or complacency, is not the same as agressive actions in a self serving manner with no regard for the average citizen.

Edited August 31, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

Red-shirt leader Thida warns the media against distorting facts and says the group has the right to go against media/

/TAN_Network

So, asking a tough question or placing a wreath is distorting facts, and that allows the red shirts to "go against" (read: intimidate and threaten) the media.

And that comes from the top. It isn't just the rank and file red shirts getting a bit out of hand.

Yay for Red Democracy.

[Antathome]

Let's be frank, shall we? Some radical elements among the redshirts are not one iota better than the brownshirt intimidation and assault squads during Germany's early Nazi era.

And if you're stating such an obvious and undeniable correlation, you are often branded as being "against democracy and social equality" by some of the redshirt sympathizers in this forum. So be it.

Hey Guys, the situation in Australia is not much better at the moment. The government is in trouble mostly due to its own incompetence and corruption and when a local newspaper chain (owned by Murdoch) takes them to task, they threaten it with forced sale and laws to curb free speech. Sounds like Thailand is a beacon of freedom by comparison.

[dcutman]

Posts with quoted content from Bangkok Post have been removed.

31) Members are not allowed to quote news articles or material from Bangkokpost.com or Phuketwan inside topics on Thaivisa.com. Posts from members containing quotes will be deleted from the forum. Members posting links referring back to the sites is also not allowed and will be deleted.

[/quote

Edited August 31, 2011 by dcutman

[whybother]

Posts with quoted content from Bangkok Post have been removed.

31) Members are not allowed to quote news articles or material from Bangkokpost.com or Phuketwan inside topics on Thaivisa.com. Posts from members containing quotes will be deleted from the forum. Members posting links referring back to the sites is also not allowed and will be deleted.

A bit ironic dont you think?

Yes. It's terrible that the Bangkok Post don't allow TVers to link to or quote their articles.

[lannarebirth]

Red-shirt leader Thida warns the media against distorting facts and says the group has the right to go against media/

/TAN_Network

So, asking a tough question or placing a wreath is distorting facts, and that allows the red shirts to "go against" (read: intimidate and threaten) the media.

And that comes from the top. It isn't just the rank and file red shirts getting a bit out of hand.

Yay for Red Democracy.

I didn't think it was a particularly tough question even. It was an obvious question give PTP's having set charter amendments as a prioroty over so many other pressing issues. I'm sure it was in the minds of every reporter there , as it is certainly in the minds of the majority of the populace.

[plumeria]

I think so many foreigner's and Thai alike miss a critical point about this whole red shirt - yellow shirt, Thaksin thing. It's not about Thaksin, its not about red-shirts or any other shirt. It is about democracy, first and last. Thailand has had 18 coups and as many constitutions since first becoming a constitutional monarchy. Democracy has yet to take hold and it will take decades. It is like the Israeli - Palestinian situation, who through the first stone. Both sides have to give up on their uncompromising position in order to function in a democratic way. As long as the yellow shirts stay focused on one man and the reds hold hatred for having their rights yanked away every time they try to have them, then the same drama will continue.

As far as this email goes, the media is criticizing the gov't for the very thing it stands for - freedom of speech. Since I have not seen anything that states a deliberate threat in that email, then isn't the lady that started it exercising here right to free speech? Don't the red-shirts have a legitimate right to be angry over having their vote and rights taken away or suppressed for as many years as it has been?

And it seems that all of this fighting always ends up back to Thaksin's. I don't have all the facts, nor does most anyone else. However, I can certainly make a free-speech observation and say that I don't doubt that Thaksin used his power to gain something while in office, but let's be truthful here, is there a single Thai politician that doesn't do the same. The only difference between Thakin and the rest is maybe the scale, but not the act, they all do it. And, the one thing that Thaksin might have a legitimate argument about is the seeming fact that he was taken out in a military coup, which then the military setup the gov't that convicted him. This doesn't seem to follow the "rule of law", it seems more like an African Junta style railroading of an opponent. If Thaksin was guilty, then the democractic process based on a constitution that provides a mechanism for this (US impeachment style if you will) is the only way to maintain a "rule of law" and properly handle such situations. It is also the mechanism to discourage leaders from abusing power since they can't hide behind a majority party protection.

Here's another thought about Thaksin, lets say that Thaksin abused his power and made tax-free profits, had he then turned around and gave, let's say, 25% of it to charity (schools, medical, environmental protection, scholarships, small business grants, etc), he would have never been taken out in a coup and convicted of a crime. This is due to my belief that he would have become a national hero (Mandela type) and any miss-propriety would have been overlooked. He would have had not only the support and love of the red-shirts, but many of the middle-class who are neither red or yellow. This much broader base of support would have made it much more difficult, if not impossible, to have taken him out. Unfortunately, Asian culture, particularly Chinese, do not have a concept of philanthropy as does western cultures (i.e., Buffet and Gates). IMHO, Thaksin really missed a world-class status by being greedy, not being a crook.

Freedom of speech as long as you agree with the TV politburo. After this posting, the usual rabid suspects will make you feel like a salmon going up stream. They do not take kindly anyone who does not judge, convict and hang Thaksin. Furthermore, anyone voicing an opinion contrary to their view will get all kinds of epithets and insults. They do not debate the issues, they attack the person. They make it an "ad hominem" crusade. They fully justify that a reporter with an agenda has more rights than a Red Shirt alerting others in their group.The opponents of the Reds are more equal than the rest of us. They truly believe that they own the truth, not the rest of us. Then again, their interpretation of freedom of speech is only fully available to them. Could it be that Soren Kierkegaard was right? "The ones demanding freedom of speech do so to make up for their lack of freedom of thought".

Some good points. But let's be clear that current journalism in any media is now agenda driven. I'm not sure when the switch actually took place but fair and unbiased reporting of the substantiated facts so readers can make up their own minds is ancient history.

It's sad when the most fair minded reporting we can find these days is by John Steward and his jokers on the Daily Show.

Edited September 2, 2011 by plumeria