Riot Victims To Receive 3 Million Baht Each In Compensation

[bigbamboo]

Families of turmoil victims may get Bt5m each

SAMATCHA HUNSARA,

CHANIKAN PUMHIRUN

THE NATION

A government committee on national reconciliation yesterday suggested that compensation of Bt3 million to Bt5 million each be paid to the families of those killed in political unrest between 2005 and 2010.

The government's coordination and follow-up committee on recommendations from the Truth for National Reconciliation Commission yesterday resolved to seek Cabinet endorsement next week of the remedy plan, the panel's deputy spokesman, Anek Wongpermseni, said.

He said the preliminary estimate showed that about Bt2 billion would be required initially.

Two subcommittees would be set up for civil and criminal rehabilitation, with the former being chaired by Prasit Kowilaikul, a former PM's Office minister in the post-coup government of General Surayud Chulanont, and the latter by former attorney-general Chaikasem Nirisiri, according to the spokesman.

Anek said the exact amount of the payment and how it would be paid are some of the details that will be discussed later.

"We initially came up with a broad framework for compensation, with the calculation based on the national GDP. According to this, each person killed in a political conflict is entitled to Bt3 million to Bt5 million," Anek said.

Yesterday's panel meeting was chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit, who is also leader of the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The meeting found that the previous Democrat-led government had allocated Bt11.4 billion to compensate victims of political unrest, and that more than Bt8.3 billion had already been spent, he said.

"The Budget Bureau was assigned to find out if that budget is still left unspent. We will only need Bt2 billion. There's no need to seek additional funding," the spokesman said.

As for those who have already been compensated, they can seek additional help under this new scheme, he said.

The spokesman said the compensation would be based on the original rules set by the previous government, in addition to new rules that are in line with international standards and based on similar cases from other countries, such as Argentina and Peru.

He said the goal was to overcome the conflict and achieve reconciliation while preventing political violence.

"I believe this measure will help us achieve reconciliation and prevent conflicts from recurring," Anek said, adding that he did not think people would be tempted to join protests just so they can get government compensation.

Panel chairman Yongyuth had given Anek the job of calling the conference because the former was scheduled to have lunch with Matubhum Party leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin. Also present at the luncheon were Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, Chart Thai Pattana's Chumpol Silapa-archa, Bhum Jai Thai's Chaovarat Chanweerakul, Rak Santi's Purachai Piumsombun, Rak Prathet Thai's Chuwit Kamolvisit and Mahachon's Apirat Sirinawin.

Sonthi asked leaders of parties that won House seats in the July 3 elections to join the lunch.

As lunch was being served, Sonthi voiced optimism that the gathering of party leaders would bode well for bringing about reconciliation.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra declined the invitation because she said she was not a party leader, though she was willing to join the reconciliation process at a later date.

-- The Nation 2012-01-07

Maybe Yingluck would have gone if they'd found a bigger table?

[punisher]

Maybe you are right,maybe different view of things,most Thai bkk friends say the same,most non bkk Thai friends think like me.anyway i remember the military changed the constitution so everybody who was involved in the coup gets free,so much about whitewash,In my opinion Mr.Thaksin had to go because he got to much power,and he was clear against royalist,military and bkk elite,not because any other reason,After Mr.Thaksin came to office Thailand was rising.they passed Vietnam,economy was good.After the coup............................

Yes, the coup was illegal and of course they gave themselves amnesty. Who wouldn't? And they rewrote the constitution. It needed it, and it still needs some fixing.

But anyone that thinks that the issues started with the coup don't want to know.

Well then please tell me what Mr.T did so bad that he had to go,and tell me also what made the former[Abisit] government so great so they should stay in office,but tell me from Thai view not Foreigner view

Why Thaksin had to go - he stole billions

Why Abhisit had to stay - they didn't, lost the election. Who said they had to stay?

I want Chuwit to be PM - at least he's honest that he's a scumbag.

Wow,so Mr.T is the only one who stole or is stealing here in Thailand?By the way i asked u to tell me out of Thai view not foreigner view,most Thais don't care Mr.T stole a fortune,because as long they have money in their pockets,can buy a beer, lao kao,and hv rice on the table they give a shit if Mr.T stole or not,Why do u think 90% of esaan was voting for Yingluck?The democrats had a long time to show what they can do,but thyi did not,instead they told them how stupid dirty and uneducated they are,I assume not a smart way to win elections,but maipenrai blame all on the only stealing politican in

[rixalex]

Maybe Yingluck would have gone if they'd found a bigger table?

[bigbamboo]

After Mr.Thaksin came to office Thailand was rising.they passed Vietnam,economy was good.After the coup............................

If we are attributing Thailand's successful economy during Thaksin's time in power to the man himself, and not to the world economy, i assume then, we can sit back and prepare ourselves to enjoy the next 3 and a half odd years of economic boom. Great news. When does it begin?

In the early 2000s during Thaksin's rule everyone's economy was rising not just Thailand's. More pertinent, and often overlooked, is that the Thai econmy under the Democrats during a severe recession stood up a lot better than most and this was recognised internationally. Abhisit may have got many things wrong but not the economy.

[MAJIC]

And while they are at it,how about going back a little farther in Thai History? to 2003,and compensate the bereived for Thaksins war on drugs,and the 2500 - 3000 who where slaughtered in a 3 month killing spree, of which there is still no sign of anyone being prosecuted for Murder,or Unjudicial killings.

[Tanaka]

Hopefully the government has calculated how much money the former government leaders and the army leadership is worth for. Take all the money off them and let them pay each and every baht.

The victims chosen by this government were all wearing red shirts.

[Colin Yai]

Did they consider extending the window back to 2003 to compensate those killed in the WoD?

Yeah Jackr quite correct, I just wonder how much compensation the loved ones of the 1200 who lost their lives when it was found out in the inquiry they had nothing to do whatsover with drugs, the old double standards again eh!!

[TAWP]

Why do u think 90% of esaan was voting for Yingluck?

Apart from the fact that they didn't.

You might want to revise those numbers by actually looking at the election result chart. Number of elected MPs doesn't say the number of votes, as highest number of votes wins, i.e. as an example 34% can be enough in a 3 way-contested district with 3 equally scoring candidates.

[hyperdimension]

By "victim" do they mean only the dead? Since they are dead, who would actually get the money? The legal inheritor, e.g. parents or wife?

So would Seh Daeng's wife get 3 to 5M THB?

[tlansford]

Thailand, new rent a riot hub. Burn and earn.

Hey seriously, we're talking about people killed. Have some shame... if not respect.

There has been a lot of violence in the last 5-6 years and no one, not one person deserved to die. 3 mill Bhat is peanuts for a life.

Term life insurance is quite common in Thailand, B3,000,000 is not as it represents 40 - 50 years earning potential of your average Thai.

Those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die, and it is my wish to see that happen, though we will have to wait until the end of the parliamentary term or a return from abroad.

"Those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die"

I don't share your convictions, Ozmick.

[philw]

And while they are at it,how about going back a little farther in Thai History? to 2003,and compensate the bereived for Thaksins war on drugs,and the 2500 - 3000 who where slaughtered in a 3 month killing spree, of which there is still no sign of anyone being prosecuted for Murder,or Unjudicial killings.

Difficult to remind you here, but a little research will tell you it was sanctioned / approved and possibly suggested by other parties.

Possibly not wholly his idea.

And by the way, supported by a huge majority of the population, which I suppose says a lot about the population......

[MAJIC]

And while they are at it,how about going back a little farther in Thai History? to 2003,and compensate the bereived for Thaksins war on drugs,and the 2500 - 3000 who where slaughtered in a 3 month killing spree, of which there is still no sign of anyone being prosecuted for Murder,or Unjudicial killings.

Difficult to remind you here, but a little research will tell you it was sanctioned / approved and possibly suggested by other parties.

Possibly not wholly his idea.

And by the way, supported by a huge majority of the population, which I suppose says a lot about the population......

Who was reported as saying "Bring them in dead or alive" ?????????

[KhaoNiaw]

Some groups here in Thailand don't want any change in Thai society,did u ever hear of "Sakdina system"?That's a system about different members of society have different social ranks :google it it's interesting to read and it makes you understand about Thailand

It's not something that requires particularly deep understanding. It's just the Thai variation of the way things are in much of the rest of the world. Google how many members of the UK government and opposition frontbenches are Oxbridge types and it makes you understand about the UK.

[whybother]

And while they are at it,how about going back a little farther in Thai History? to 2003,and compensate the bereived for Thaksins war on drugs,and the 2500 - 3000 who where slaughtered in a 3 month killing spree, of which there is still no sign of anyone being prosecuted for Murder,or Unjudicial killings.

Difficult to remind you here, but a little research will tell you it was sanctioned / approved and possibly suggested by other parties.

Possibly not wholly his idea.

And by the way, supported by a huge majority of the population, which I suppose says a lot about the population......

So the "victims" of the red shirt crackdown (which was "sanctioned and approved" according to the red shirts) shouldn't get any payout's either?

Edited January 7, 2012 by whybother

[JohnAllan]

And will the beneficiaries of this exceptional Pheu Thai generosity include those service personnel who were injured doing their job?

Will it extend further - perhaps to the family of the young man shot dead by redshirt rioters in 2009, as he tried to stop them hijacking and setting fire to a fuel tanker? Or has that incident been conveniently forgotten?

And more pertinent yet - will it, I wonder, extend to those who were actively participating in [thus making them liable for their own safety], even promoting, the rioting?

As an additional observation: this largesse on the part of the government, courtesy of the taxpayer, many of whom were involuntarily caught up in the troubles, should be compared to the sort of derisory amounts offered - usually many years after the event - to those injured due to the incompetence of others, such as the victims of medical malpractice. Or those injured, or killed, as a result of sheer stupidity on the part of others; such as the young girl who fell through a carelessly left hole in a floor of The Paragon on the day it opened.

[nurofiend]

Thailand, new rent a riot hub. Burn and earn.

Hey seriously, we're talking about people killed. Have some shame... if not respect.

There has been a lot of violence in the last 5-6 years and no one, not one person deserved to die. 3 mill Bhat is peanuts for a life.

Term life insurance is quite common in Thailand, B3,000,000 is not as it represents 40 - 50 years earning potential of your average Thai.

Those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die, and it is my wish to see that happen, though we will have to wait until the end of the parliamentary term or a return from abroad.

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

[TAWP]

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

Edited January 8, 2012 by TAWP

[nurofiend]

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

wouldn't they have been talking about the governent in the context as criminals and not innocent individuals too?

and you protect the phrase 'deserving'... so i'd guess if a red shirt leader said for example 'abhisit deserves to die', you wouldn't considering it encouraging others, right? yeah, i'll bet you wouldn't.

[TAWP]

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

wouldn't they have been talking about the governent in the context as criminals and not innocent individuals too?

and you protect the phrase 'deserving'... so i'd guess if a red shirt leader said for example 'abhisit deserves to die', you wouldn't considering it encouraging others, right? yeah, i'll bet you wouldn't.

Actually, that is what posters here and on red shirt forum has written...so should we prosecute them?

Here, you shall see a similar again: Those amongst red shirts that instigated violence, paid for the violence or acted out with violence deserved to die more so than any by-standing red shirts, civilians or soldiers that did [in addition to those previously listed].

Edited January 8, 2012 by TAWP

[nurofiend]

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

wouldn't they have been talking about the governent in the context as criminals and not innocent individuals too?

and you protect the phrase 'deserving'... so i'd guess if a red shirt leader said for example 'abhisit deserves to die', you wouldn't considering it encouraging others, right? yeah, i'll bet you wouldn't.

Actually, that is what posters here and on red shirt forum has written...so should we prosecute them?

Here, you shall see a similar again: Those amongst red shirts that instigated violence, paid for the violence or acted out with violence deserved to die more so than any by-standing red shirts, civilians or soldiers that did [in addition to those previously listed].

if it's a prosecutable offence then yes, if not, then no.

i don't know what your second point has to do with what i've said but whatever.

[Siam Simon]

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

You need to read a few more of his posts. He regularly advocates murder as a political weapon.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

wouldn't they have been talking about the governent in the context as criminals and not innocent individuals too?

and you protect the phrase 'deserving'... so i'd guess if a red shirt leader said for example 'abhisit deserves to die', you wouldn't considering it encouraging others, right? yeah, i'll bet you wouldn't.

Actually, that is what posters here and on red shirt forum has written...so should we prosecute them?

Here, you shall see a similar again: Those amongst red shirts that instigated violence, paid for the violence or acted out with violence deserved to die more so than any by-standing red shirts, civilians or soldiers that did [in addition to those previously listed].

as an observation, I cannot claim to have read every post on TVF, but so far, I don't recall anyone saying that "abhisit deserves to die". While it is possible, if it happens, it seems to be rare. On the other hand, I read with too much regularity, posters saying that the protesters in 2010 deserved to die.

The general direction of hate seems to be a one-way street on TVF.

[OzMick]

Thailand, new rent a riot hub. Burn and earn.

Hey seriously, we're talking about people killed. Have some shame... if not respect.

There has been a lot of violence in the last 5-6 years and no one, not one person deserved to die. 3 mill Bhat is peanuts for a life.

Term life insurance is quite common in Thailand, B3,000,000 is not as it represents 40 - 50 years earning potential of your average Thai.

Those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die, and it is my wish to see that happen, though we will have to wait until the end of the parliamentary term or a return from abroad.

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

With a dictionary to help me to understand the words that I use. Like to borrow it?

[OzMick]

so if "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die" would obviously include people stating that other people deserve to die, where does that leave you?

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

You need to read a few more of his posts. He regularly advocates murder as a political weapon.

Oh yes - an example please.

[OzMick]

- sniper -

It would leave him safe as he was talking about them in the concept as criminals and not innocent individuals, in the same way it is legal for a judge to sentence a criminal to die but not for you to do the same on your neighbor. In addition he was talking about 'deserving' (as oppose to others less so), not encouraging others to carry out the acts. Unlike your red shirt violence instigator addressed.

wouldn't they have been talking about the governent in the context as criminals and not innocent individuals too?

and you protect the phrase 'deserving'... so i'd guess if a red shirt leader said for example 'abhisit deserves to die', you wouldn't considering it encouraging others, right? yeah, i'll bet you wouldn't.

Actually, that is what posters here and on red shirt forum has written...so should we prosecute them?

Here, you shall see a similar again: Those amongst red shirts that instigated violence, paid for the violence or acted out with violence deserved to die more so than any by-standing red shirts, civilians or soldiers that did [in addition to those previously listed].

as an observation, I cannot claim to have read every post on TVF, but so far, I don't recall anyone saying that "abhisit deserves to die". While it is possible, if it happens, it seems to be rare. On the other hand, I read with too much regularity, posters saying that the protesters in 2010 deserved to die.

The general direction of hate seems to be a one-way street on TVF.

My post referred to "those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others" - in other words, I support the death penalty in cases where there is absolutely no doubt. If Hitler had been executed for his early crimes, and there were plenty, how many lives would have been saved?

There was no mention of protesters. Please try to use the appropriate words in your posts.

[sparebox2]

Maybe he was thinking of the situation at Democracy Monument - well documented on Youtube - where, after the bullets started flying, soldiers trapped in an APC would have been beaten - maybe to death, who knows - by angry red shirted demonstrators were it not for the intervention by red shirted guards who protected them.

I believe they were all handed back to the army in fairly good shape shortly afterwards, although I'm not sure if they were accompanied by their weapons.

Or maybe the soldiers that were dragged out of the truck by red shirts and beaten up, with one of them being shot.

Maybe. Just maybe. But there are no proof.

[whybother]

Maybe he was thinking of the situation at Democracy Monument - well documented on Youtube - where, after the bullets started flying, soldiers trapped in an APC would have been beaten - maybe to death, who knows - by angry red shirted demonstrators were it not for the intervention by red shirted guards who protected them.

I believe they were all handed back to the army in fairly good shape shortly afterwards, although I'm not sure if they were accompanied by their weapons.

Or maybe the soldiers that were dragged out of the truck by red shirts and beaten up, with one of them being shot.

Maybe. Just maybe. But there are no proof.

Actually, there is proof that soldiers were dragged out of a truck and one of them was shot. I think the video was posted earlier in the thread.

[sparebox2]

I wonder if the 3 mil will be paid cash or via installment.

Better via installment, else acohol and pick-up sales will goes up, and all spent off silly within 6 months.

[sparebox2]

Maybe he was thinking of the situation at Democracy Monument - well documented on Youtube - where, after the bullets started flying, soldiers trapped in an APC would have been beaten - maybe to death, who knows - by angry red shirted demonstrators were it not for the intervention by red shirted guards who protected them.

I believe they were all handed back to the army in fairly good shape shortly afterwards, although I'm not sure if they were accompanied by their weapons.

Or maybe the soldiers that were dragged out of the truck by red shirts and beaten up, with one of them being shot.

Maybe. Just maybe. But there are no proof.

Actually, there is proof that soldiers were dragged out of a truck and one of them was shot. I think the video was posted earlier in the thread.

Sorry, I can't find it. Please post the viedo link again. As proof.

He say, she say, I think, I heard, .... etc is not proof.

[whybother]

Sorry, I can't find it. Please post the viedo link again. As proof.

He say, she say, I think, I heard, .... etc is not proof.

You didn't look hard enough, or more likely didn't even look.

Post #36.