No Justice For Victims Of Thai Political Unrest: HRW

[webfact]

No justice for victims of Thai political unrest: HRW

BANGKOK, April 10, 2012 (AFP) - Thailand has failed to provide justice for victims of bloody political protests, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday, as the government debates plans to offer a sweeping amnesty for the violence.

The Thai cabinet is preparing to mull a proposal to offer immunity as part of reconciliation efforts to draw a line under years of unrest since the 2006 coup that toppled prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, brother of the country's current leader.

But a statement from HRW warned that if adopted the move would "undermine justice", particularly for those killed or injured in deadly crackdowns on "Red Shirt" street protests in Bangkok in 2010.

"Those harmed in the upheavals and their families are still waiting for justice because successive governments haven't kept their promises to hold the abusers accountable," said HRW Asia advocacy director John Sifton.

Thailand has seen in a string of violent protests since 2005, involving the arch royalist and nationalist Yellow Shirts, the mainly rural working-class Red Shirts and several smaller factions.

The current government of Yingluck Shinawatra came to power last year, bolstered by support from the Red Shirts, with a promise of reconciliation in the deeply divided nation.

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed and nearly 1,900 wounded during the 2010 Red Shirt rallies, which ended in a bloody military crackdown under the previous premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Thailand in January agreed a 2.0 billion baht ($65 million) pot to compensate all victims of political unrest in recent years, but criminal investigations into the 2010 deaths have yet to lead to any prosecutions.

The opposition has accused the government of trying to use the amnesty plans as a means of enabling a return to Thailand for Thaksin, who lives abroad to avoid a jail term for corruption and terrorism charges relating to the 2010 violence.

HRW said families welcomed the reparations but expressed concern that actions in parliament would "block accountability and keep the truth buried".

"The reconciliation proposal is about enabling powerful people on all sides to get away with grievous crimes. Everyone wins, except the victims," Sifton said.

Amnesty International has also criticised the amnesty plans, urging Thailand not to grant immunity for "grave human rights violations".

A government spokesman told AFP that it was unclear when the proposals would be discussed by the cabinet.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2012-04-10

[webfact]

HRW

Rights group calls for justice two years after Bangkok violence

BANGKOK:-- Thai governments have failed to hold accountable those involved in street fighting between government forces and protestors in 2010, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

"Those harmed in the upheavals and their families are still waiting for justice because successive governments haven’t kept their promises to hold the abusers accountable," said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at the New-York based organisation.

The statement came two years after then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave the order on April 10, 2010 to clear a street protestin the old part of Bangkok, provoking a clash that left 19protesters, six soldiers and one Japanese journalist dead.

The protests, led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), or Red Shirts, continued until May 19, when thegovernment arrested their leaders.

Altogether, 92 people died in the two months of clashes which left parts of the city in flames.

The current government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of the UDD’s de facto leader and fugitive politician Thaksin Shinawatra, has offered compensation to the victims.

But no one has yet been held accountable for the deaths, injuries and property damage, Human Rights Watch said.

Instead, the government of the Pheu Thai party is pushing apolitical reconciliation plan that includes a blanket amnesty.

"The reconciliation proposal is about enabling powerful people onall sides to get away with grievous crimes," Sifton said. "Everyonewins, except the victims." Thailand has a recent history of granting amnesties for those accountable for politically motivated violence. Governments granted amnesties after crackdowns on street demonstrations in 1973, 1976 and 1992.

-- The Nation 2012-04-10

[animatic]

Hiding culpability is the 'Political National Sport of Thailand'.

Clearly HRW is not Thai enough to understand that. ( irony smiley)

[tlansford]

side by side comparison of how the 2010 protest ended:

AFP

which ended in a bloody military crackdown under the previous premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva

The Nation

continued until May 19, when the government arrested their leaders.

food for thought...

ไม่อร่อย

[WackySomchai]

The fugitive and his puppet government are simply buying the victims silence, just like they bought the redshirt terrorists, the election votes and the courts judges. However the tactic backfired when the fugitive was trying to buy the southern terrorists.

[moe666]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

[tlansford]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

Actually, the "usual suspects" tend to point out that there were elections scheduled for mid-October, so why the rush for a coup?

[rubl]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

Actually, the "usual suspects" tend to point out that there were elections scheduled for mid-October, so why the rush for a coup?

Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set.

Of course in proper democratic countries this can't happen. Sure. Just keep in mind we're talking about Thailand here. Even in Italy it took a while to get rid of Sylvio B.

Edited April 10, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

Actually, the "usual suspects" tend to point out that there were elections scheduled for mid-October, so why the rush for a coup?

Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set.

Of course in proper democratic countries this can't happen. Sure. Just keep in mind we're talking about Thailand here. Even in Italy it took a while to get rid of Sylvio B.

So the democrats had no confidence in winning the elections in October (having boycotted the April ones) and obviously the Army agreed with this scenario as well. Strange way of running a democracy.

Even Abhisit said the coup was held in between elections in his interview with the Financial Times (FT) - he actually said "in the middle of an election" but I can only presume he meant the build up to, as we know there wasn't an election actually happening at the time of the coup - unless he thinks a coup is another form of election? On reflection thats quite feasible...............

FT: But there has been a history when election results have been overturned, one by a coup ...

AV: Oh? When was there an election overturned by a coup? We had a coup in the middle of an election.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b6de6b0-969d-11e0-baca-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1jMSgCiwd

Unfortunately Murdochs lost a few bob recently so has to make it back by making you pay for his papers online - I'm sure there is a way around this but not for me to say.

[backtonormal]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

Actually, the "usual suspects" tend to point out that there were elections scheduled for mid-October, so why the rush for a coup?

Like it or lump it the powers that be could not accept he was and still is the most popular non monarch in Thai history. Not only did he wants his head in the trough but he was about to take the trough away and let his mates feed in it........ Coup time

Edited April 10, 2012 by backtonormal

[rubl]

[Actually, the "usual suspects" tend to point out that there were elections scheduled for mid-October, so why the rush for a coup?

Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set.

Of course in proper democratic countries this can't happen. Sure. Just keep in mind we're talking about Thailand here. Even in Italy it took a while to get rid of Sylvio B.

So the democrats had no confidence in winning the elections in October (having boycotted the April ones) and obviously the Army agreed with this scenario as well. Strange way of running a democracy.

Even Abhisit said the coup was held in between elections in his interview with the Financial Times (FT) - he actually said "in the middle of an election" but I can only presume he meant the build up to, as we know there wasn't an election actually happening at the time of the coup - unless he thinks a coup is another form of election? On reflection thats quite feasible...............

FT: But there has been a history when election results have been overturned, one by a coup ...

AV: Oh? When was there an election overturned by a coup? We had a coup in the middle of an election.

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#ixzz1jMSgCiwd

Unfortunately Murdochs lost a few bob recently so has to make it back by making you pay for his papers online - I'm sure there is a way around this but not for me to say.

If you have problems with this I'm willing to use a larger font, but the mod's tend to dislike that:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

Another (more recent) example would be

"BANGKOK:-- There is no need for the government to hold dialogue with people who still disagree with key elements of the national reconciliation plan as it has been endorsed by Parliament, Deputy Premier and Interior Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit said."

Edited April 10, 2012 by rubl

[espinoza]

This country asks for an situation like Syria, and I`m afraid it will be similar very soon. This is not a safe place on earth!!!!

[phiphidon]

If you have problems with this I'm willing to use a larger font, but the mod's tend to dislike that:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

I dont have any problem with my vision. Maybe your vision of democracy is a bit blurred. An election had been set for September originally but October in reality. What would have been the problem of waiting a month or so and then contest the election and win it , you know, democratically? As Thaksin was obviously the anti-christ in most peoples minds at this point it shouldn't have been too hard to garner support.

[rubl]

If you have problems with this I'm willing to use a larger font, but the mod's tend to dislike that:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

I dont have any problem with my vision. Maybe your vision of democracy is a bit blurred. An election had been set for September originally but October in reality. What would have been the problem of waiting a month or so and then contest the election and win it , you know, democratically? As Thaksin was obviously the anti-christ in most peoples minds at this point it shouldn't have been too hard to garner support.

Your vision may not be a problem, may be just reading / understanding. I know English is a difficult language, even for English.

So let me try for a last time:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

Edited April 10, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

If you have problems with this I'm willing to use a larger font, but the mod's tend to dislike that:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

I dont have any problem with my vision. Maybe your vision of democracy is a bit blurred. An election had been set for September originally but October in reality. What would have been the problem of waiting a month or so and then contest the election and win it , you know, democratically? As Thaksin was obviously the anti-christ in most peoples minds at this point it shouldn't have been too hard to garner support.

Your vision may not be a problem, may be just reading / understanding. I know English is a difficult language, even for English.

So let me try for a last time:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

This is pointless. Good night.

[MAJIC]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

Moe666

You are 100% correct,but trying to get a Red Shirt to admit to the truth,is hard work. The story doesn't sound nearly so dramatic,to say that when the Coup took place Thaksin was a nobody, an Ex PM,so the coup,was non confrontational,because there was not a Current Government to eject from Power,as is normally the case.

Don't expect the Red Shirts to accept the truth,any time soon,it doesn't suit their cause.They lie like the proverbial Pigs in S**t.

Edited April 10, 2012 by MAJIC

[hellodolly]

side by side comparison of how the 2010 protest ended:

AFP

which ended in a bloody military crackdown under the previous premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva

The Nation

continued until May 19, when the government arrested their leaders.

food for thought...

ไม่อร่อย

And you thought the cabinet would call it a peaceful demonstration.

[hellodolly]

It would be nice if they got there story correct, he was no longer PM when the coup took place he had resigned and then tried to reappoint himself as PM. These are the kind of stories the usual suspects grab hold of to re-write history according to Big T

Actually, the "usual suspects" tend to point out that there were elections scheduled for mid-October, so why the rush for a coup?

No they don't they claim their was a coup against Thaksin.

Check with Calgaryll he knows every thing.

[allan michaud]

If you have problems with this I'm willing to use a larger font, but the mod's tend to dislike that:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

I dont have any problem with my vision. Maybe your vision of democracy is a bit blurred. An election had been set for September originally but October in reality. What would have been the problem of waiting a month or so and then contest the election and win it , you know, democratically? As Thaksin was obviously the anti-christ in most peoples minds at this point it shouldn't have been too hard to garner support.

Your vision may not be a problem, may be just reading / understanding. I know English is a difficult language, even for English.

So let me try for a last time:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

This is pointless. Good night.

I understand where he is coming from, I think it is very clear “why” the coup happened.

Thaksin put his family members in charge of the police, the military and was well on the way to total control, a coup was inevitable. He made it possible for himself to buy ITV the only non-government run TV station, began suing any and all journos that said anything untoward in an effort to gag the press. He was very clearly after total control. These are the actions of pretty much every dictator in history. As someone else pointed out he was also doing a great job of taking the trough away from the Hi So’s, which was probably the last straw.

There are of course his many other questionable actions. Almost his very first action as PM in 2001 was to have his cronies pass legislation that benefitted his company, by as much as Baht 20billion annually by some estimates. Then we have covering up bird flu; 2,500 people murdered; tax avoidance; dodgy land deals; gov’t loans to Burma to be spent with his company and numerous other things he did, none of which were of any benefit to Thailand. Anyone who mentions Thaksin and democracy in the same breath must be blind.

I want to make this clear I think the Dems/HiSo’s are no better, but Thaksin is a very nasty piece of work who will stop at nothing. He is in every sense of the word a megalomaniac and while he is around I fear for my sons future growing up in this country.

[rubl]

Your vision may not be a problem, may be just reading / understanding. I know English is a difficult language, even for English.

So let me try for a last time:

"Because our self-styled dictator was happily busy to undermine all democratic statues and move his family members in positions to 'ensure' conformance. Doesn't mean a coup was rushed, but explains why a coup was set."

This is pointless. Good night.

Don't let it be said I don't try my best to explain

With k. Thaksin saying "I/we can rule fro twenty years" and him happily busy breaking down as much checks and balances which might prevent him from doing so, it seems a bit proposterous to say "why not wait a month?" Seems hardly likely a fair election with fair play was to be expected.

The "democrats had no confidence in winning the elections" and "obviously the Army agreed with this scenario as well." with a bit of "What would have been the problem of waiting a month or so" thrown in somehow seems to insinuate the Democrats were actively involved in the coup. That's a very nice suggestion but not true. The Dem's didn't know of the coup planning or execution, no more that people in other political parties listening to all rumours freely floating around at that time. K. Abhisit condemned the coup, although he might have been a bit more forceful.

For more info on the coup check Gen. Sonthi, the general turned MP and party leader who's currently affiliated with the Pheu Thai "it's not about Thaksin" party and busy writing down all in his memoirs to be published after his death. I've heard some say 'may he live forever'

Edited April 11, 2012 by rubl