Former Thai Pm Abhisit In Court Over 'red Shirt' Protest Deaths

[jonclark]

Hey Birdpoo - You still haven't answered my question - Who killed the soldiers. Stop hiding.

Unlike yourself, I don't claim to know the answer. I only point out to those opinionated enough to lay blame, that they may be wrong.

Birdpoo - well said your don't know the answer.

[Moruya]

Do you find it quite normal that all these red shirts gathered for a peaceful rally would behave as if it were an everyday thing for people to fire guns and grenade launchers from within their ranks?

I can't imagine, even at a Millwall game, where fans would certainly raise an eyebrow or two.

If you had been there and witnessed the black shirts doing this, would you have carried on with your prawn sandwiches and Earl Grey?

"Do you find it quite normal that all these red shirts gathered for a peaceful rally would behave as if it were an everyday thing for people to fire guns and grenade launchers from within their ranks?"

If you are talking about the Lumpini rally site I would love you to show me pictures or anything like that showing the MIB firing guns and grenade launchers in amongst the massed ranks of clapper toting grannies, LOL.

I'm talking about the deaths encapsulated in the topic of this thread

[birdpooguava]

just because you never saw armed groups at ratchaprasong doesn't mean they didn't exist. The men who I saw were all in civilian clothes and looked exactly like your average Thai. The only thing that set them apart was how they moved physically, and how they carried their weapons calmly confidently and with a purpose. These weren't some technical college students with grandads revolver and a Ping pong bomb over excited and full of bravado. They were quiet, confident and deliberate and around 35-45m years old. Please remember the events i recounted took place outside the protest area which is where most of the violence and deaths occurred.

There is a myth of groups of MIB, there were no MIB, those MIB wore the same clothes as you, I or your average person would wear and would be impossible to distinguish. Makes perfect sense if you think about it - Blend in avoid detection

"Journalists said that in several instances troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators, frequently in areas where reporters were present. Their news reports and interviews with CPJ also highlighted the presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas where journalists were positioned."

http://cpj.org/repor...-under-fire.php

So. what line are we going for here guys; they wore black, they didn't wear black, they wore black on alternate days; depended on their skin tone....

[Moruya]

Probably the same clown that would point out those "black shirts" are in fact red shirt security guards...............

Oh that's priceless!

You have got to be kidding!!

Security guards

What do peaceful democracy loving demonstrators need security guards for?

And menacing looking vigilante security guards at that

Security guards

No further questions your honour

"What do peaceful democracy loving demonstrators need security guards for?"

Ever heard of the Royal Thai Army 2nd Infantry Division?

So your peaceful demonstrators bring armed security to fight the army. <deleted> brilliant, you wonder why they are dead?

Hahaha!

[KireB]

So your peaceful demonstrators bring armed security to fight the army. <deleted> brilliant, you wonder why they are dead?

Sad thing is that these armed terrorists were not among those killed, they just lighted the fire on someone's command (a deliberate action). I believe, repeat believe, that most casualties were the normal 'peaceful' red shirts, those with slingshots, bamboo sticks and knives.

[nurofiend]

So your peaceful demonstrators bring armed security to fight the army. <deleted> brilliant, you wonder why they are dead?

Sad thing is that these armed terrorists were not among those killed, they just lighted the fire on someone's command (a deliberate action). I believe, repeat believe, that most casualties were the normal 'peaceful' red shirts, those with slingshots, bamboo sticks and knives.

so then do you admit that most who were killed were of no serious threat to the soldiers?

i don't know how many soldiers were pelted, bamboo'd or stabbed to death though?

maybe someone could prove me wrong that those people were indeed a serious enough threat to the soldiers that they needed to be shot dead with live rounds?

[rubl]

July 2010

""Journalists said that in several instances troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators, frequently in areas where reporters were present. Their news reports and interviews with CPJ also highlighted the presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas where journalists were positioned."

http://cpj.org/repor...-under-fire.php

Mind you, those armed red-shirt militants were really friendly, they didn't even kill NN

"Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people."

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

[OzMick]

just because you never saw armed groups at ratchaprasong doesn't mean they didn't exist. The men who I saw were all in civilian clothes and looked exactly like your average Thai. The only thing that set them apart was how they moved physically, and how they carried their weapons calmly confidently and with a purpose. These weren't some technical college students with grandads revolver and a Ping pong bomb over excited and full of bravado. They were quiet, confident and deliberate and around 35-45m years old. Please remember the events i recounted took place outside the protest area which is where most of the violence and deaths occurred.

There is a myth of groups of MIB, there were no MIB, those MIB wore the same clothes as you, I or your average person would wear and would be impossible to distinguish. Makes perfect sense if you think about it - Blend in avoid detection

"Journalists said that in several instances troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators, frequently in areas where reporters were present. Their news reports and interviews with CPJ also highlighted the presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas where journalists were positioned."

http://cpj.org/repor...-under-fire.php

So. what line are we going for here guys; they wore black, they didn't wear black, they wore black on alternate days; depended on their skin tone....

Try to think logically (difficult, I know). It doesn't matter what they wore, they were armed men amongst the protesters, and security personnel were being wounded and killed.

[birdpooguava]

Try to think logically (difficult, I know). It doesn't matter what they wore, they were armed men amongst the protesters, and security personnel were being wounded and killed.

One army apologist tells us they definitely weren't dressed in black and another says they definitely were. Someone's obviously talking BS

[OzMick]

Try to think logically (difficult, I know). It doesn't matter what they wore, they were armed men amongst the protesters, and security personnel were being wounded and killed.

One army apologist tells us they definitely weren't dressed in black and another says they definitely were. Someone's obviously talking BS

And you are nit-picking an irrelevancy to derail the subject. There were armed protesters. They killed and wounded RTA members and quite likely protesters as well. Retaliatory lethal violence was to be expected. Anybody who aided, abetted or shielded armed rioters should expect that they could be seriously injured or killed in the crossfire. The colour of their shirt is far less important than the abyss of their stupidity.

[rubl]

red-shirts, black shirts, normal shirts. Why not ask our local reporter NN, he wrote he met some of these friendly chaps.

BTW 'army apologist'? The quote from the "Committee to Protect Journalists" website clearly doesn't apologise the army when writing "troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators". Maybe the apologist part is in the next sentence "presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas"

[KireB]

So your peaceful demonstrators bring armed security to fight the army. <deleted> brilliant, you wonder why they are dead?

Sad thing is that these armed terrorists were not among those killed, they just lighted the fire on someone's command (a deliberate action). I believe, repeat believe, that most casualties were the normal 'peaceful' red shirts, those with slingshots, bamboo sticks and knives.

so then do you admit that most who were killed were of no serious threat to the soldiers?

i don't know how many soldiers were pelted, bamboo'd or stabbed to death though?

maybe someone could prove me wrong that those people were indeed a serious enough threat to the soldiers that they needed to be shot dead with live rounds?

The armed group of reds, or MIB's, turned Bangkok in a war zone, with daily grenade attacks, shooting of military, etc.. That was their goal, to provoke the army into battle. They were responsible for the necessity to set up live firing zones. The military, the Kingdom of Thailand was under attack you know (and you know by who!!!) ? If you walk in a live firing zone, warning after warning, with slingshots, knives and bamboo sticks, yes well you should know the risks! Sad but true loads of 'peaceful' protesters were blinded by the red propaganda!

[birdpooguava]

And you are nit-picking an irrelevancy to derail the subject. There were armed protesters. They killed and wounded RTA members and quite likely protesters as well. Retaliatory lethal violence was to be expected. Anybody who aided, abetted or shielded armed rioters should expect that they could be seriously injured or killed in the crossfire. The colour of their shirt is far less important than the abyss of their stupidity.

Nit-picking...I'm sure a court of law would disagree. If it can't even be proven what clothes these people were wearing how on earth can anything against them be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, evidence against some of the army snipers is a lot more damning.

[OzMick]

And you are nit-picking an irrelevancy to derail the subject. There were armed protesters. They killed and wounded RTA members and quite likely protesters as well. Retaliatory lethal violence was to be expected. Anybody who aided, abetted or shielded armed rioters should expect that they could be seriously injured or killed in the crossfire. The colour of their shirt is far less important than the abyss of their stupidity.

Nit-picking...I'm sure a court of law would disagree. If it can't even be proven what clothes these people were wearing how on earth can anything against them be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, evidence against some of the army snipers is a lot more damning.

So is the colour of their trousers relevant too? Do we need a description of their underwear? How about their shoe size - estimated at around your IQ?

[craigt3365]

A post with a potential threat against another member has been removed from view. If members feel threatened by other member's posts, please use the report function and let the moderators sort things out.

[whybother]

And you are nit-picking an irrelevancy to derail the subject. There were armed protesters. They killed and wounded RTA members and quite likely protesters as well. Retaliatory lethal violence was to be expected. Anybody who aided, abetted or shielded armed rioters should expect that they could be seriously injured or killed in the crossfire. The colour of their shirt is far less important than the abyss of their stupidity.

Nit-picking...I'm sure a court of law would disagree. If it can't even be proven what clothes these people were wearing how on earth can anything against them be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, evidence against some of the army snipers is a lot more damning.

Are you wanting to prove everything "beyond a reasonable doubt"? In that case no one did anything in April-May 2010.

[birdpooguava]

And you are nit-picking an irrelevancy to derail the subject. There were armed protesters. They killed and wounded RTA members and quite likely protesters as well. Retaliatory lethal violence was to be expected. Anybody who aided, abetted or shielded armed rioters should expect that they could be seriously injured or killed in the crossfire. The colour of their shirt is far less important than the abyss of their stupidity.

Nit-picking...I'm sure a court of law would disagree. If it can't even be proven what clothes these people were wearing how on earth can anything against them be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, evidence against some of the army snipers is a lot more damning.

So is the colour of their trousers relevant too? Do we need a description of their underwear? How about their shoe size - estimated at around your IQ?

trousers ..yes... underpants ..no (unless they weren't wearing pants or wearing a kilt perhaps). If you need any help with your times tables you could ask too.

[rixalex]

On the other hand - it is another undeniable fact that soldiers fired at times indiscriminately at unarmed protesters (and journos, rescue personal and vehicles, and bystanders).

Indiscriminate firing implies a wanton disregard for life. It's easy to judge the soldiers, but they were mostly young, not that well trained people, experiencing the mayhem of what affectively amounted to warfare, for the first time in their lives; the pressures of dealing with a situation in which their lives were in real threat. They were the only people, besides perhaps medics and a few others, who had no choice in being there. Everyone else had complete freedom to walk away any moment they chose. And there were certainly plenty of pleas for them to do so, and warnings about the potential consequences of not. They didn't, and some of them paid dearly for that decision that they, and they alone, made.

But as is the way of the world these days, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Not, "if only i had left the protest and gone home when the government pleaded me to for the umpteenth time of asking, i wouldn't have been shot", but rather, "if those soldiers hadn't been so nasty and evil, firing back at our group, just because a couple of us were firing AK-47s at them, i wouldn't have been shot.... now where is my compensation?"

[birdpooguava]

Indiscriminate firing implies a wanton disregard for life. It's easy to judge the soldiers, but they were mostly young, not that well trained people, experiencing the mayhem of what affectively amounted to warfare, for the first time in their lives; the pressures of dealing with a situation in which their lives were in real threat. They were the only people, besides perhaps medics and a few others, who had no choice in being there. Everyone else had complete freedom to walk away any moment they chose. And there were certainly plenty of pleas for them to do so, and warnings about the potential consequences of not. They didn't, and some of them paid dearly for that decision that they, and they alone, made.

But as is the way of the world these days, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Not, "if only i had left the protest and gone home when the government pleaded me to for the umpteenth time of asking, i wouldn't have been shot", but rather, "if those soldiers hadn't been so nasty and evil, firing back at our group, just because a couple of us were firing AK-47s at them, i wouldn't have been shot.... now where is my compensation?"

As far as the protesters were concerned those telling them to leave were illegitimate and had played a major role in stealing a right afforded to them in the Thai constitution, i.e. the right to vote. AV & the Dems had the opportunity to walk away before the reds even arrived in Bangkok, avoiding all violence & confrontation. This would have led to elections where the so called government would have been trounced as usual and put back to the back-benches where they belonged. Therefore just as you pin the blame on the protesters who refused to leave, we can just as easily lay the blame on the Dems/army/elite who forced unwilling politicians to side with the Dems to form a government unacceptable to the majority of the electorate.

[whybother]

Indiscriminate firing implies a wanton disregard for life. It's easy to judge the soldiers, but they were mostly young, not that well trained people, experiencing the mayhem of what affectively amounted to warfare, for the first time in their lives; the pressures of dealing with a situation in which their lives were in real threat. They were the only people, besides perhaps medics and a few others, who had no choice in being there. Everyone else had complete freedom to walk away any moment they chose. And there were certainly plenty of pleas for them to do so, and warnings about the potential consequences of not. They didn't, and some of them paid dearly for that decision that they, and they alone, made.

But as is the way of the world these days, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Not, "if only i had left the protest and gone home when the government pleaded me to for the umpteenth time of asking, i wouldn't have been shot", but rather, "if those soldiers hadn't been so nasty and evil, firing back at our group, just because a couple of us were firing AK-47s at them, i wouldn't have been shot.... now where is my compensation?"

As far as the protesters were concerned those telling them to leave were illegitimate and had played a major role in stealing a right afforded to them in the Thai constitution, i.e. the right to vote. AV & the Dems had the opportunity to walk away before the reds even arrived in Bangkok, avoiding all violence & confrontation. This would have led to elections where the so called government would have been trounced as usual and put back to the back-benches where they belonged. Therefore just as you pin the blame on the protesters who refused to leave, we can just as easily lay the blame on the Dems/army/elite who forced unwilling politicians to side with the Dems to form a government unacceptable to the majority of the electorate.

Who was stopping anyone from voting? Do you really think that a government should step down just because some people are protesting?

Why should the Democrats walk away? A majority of MPs voted for Abhisit as PM and he formed government. That makes it as legitimate as any other government in the last 5 years.

Should the PTP step down from government, since, obviously, the majority of the electorate find them unacceptable.

Edited September 1, 2012 by whybother

[birdpooguava]

Who was stopping anyone from voting? Do you really think that a government should step down just because some people are protesting?

Why should the Democrats walk away? A majority of MPs voted for Abhisit as PM and he formed government. That makes it as legitimate as any other government in the last 5 years.

Should the PTP step down from government, since, obviously, the majority of the electorate find them unacceptable.

No, the Dem's coalition partners did not vote for AV because they wanted to (kind regards to Chumpol S.) but because they were forced to. That makes the government illegitimate. This is now common knowledge so why do you continue to lie?

Edited September 1, 2012 by birdpooguava

[rixalex]

Indiscriminate firing implies a wanton disregard for life. It's easy to judge the soldiers, but they were mostly young, not that well trained people, experiencing the mayhem of what affectively amounted to warfare, for the first time in their lives; the pressures of dealing with a situation in which their lives were in real threat. They were the only people, besides perhaps medics and a few others, who had no choice in being there. Everyone else had complete freedom to walk away any moment they chose. And there were certainly plenty of pleas for them to do so, and warnings about the potential consequences of not. They didn't, and some of them paid dearly for that decision that they, and they alone, made.

But as is the way of the world these days, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Not, "if only i had left the protest and gone home when the government pleaded me to for the umpteenth time of asking, i wouldn't have been shot", but rather, "if those soldiers hadn't been so nasty and evil, firing back at our group, just because a couple of us were firing AK-47s at them, i wouldn't have been shot.... now where is my compensation?"

As far as the protesters were concerned those telling them to leave were illegitimate and had played a major role in stealing a right afforded to them in the Thai constitution, i.e. the right to vote. AV & the Dems had the opportunity to walk away before the reds even arrived in Bangkok, avoiding all violence & confrontation. This would have led to elections where the so called government would have been trounced as usual and put back to the back-benches where they belonged. Therefore just as you pin the blame on the protesters who refused to leave, we can just as easily lay the blame on the Dems/army/elite who forced unwilling politicians to side with the Dems to form a government unacceptable to the majority of the electorate.

You entire argument on behalf of the Reds is based on a false premise. Whatever the protesters thought, the government wasn't illegitimate. Yes it lacked a decent mandate, and yes, it came to being through some dodgy backroom deals involving unelected persons, but that didn't make it illegitimate and if anyone argues that is was, well then they would have to accept that almost all governments here have been illegitimate, not least the one directly before it in which Somchai came out of nowhere to suddenly be the one running the country (or at least supposedly running it).

I agree that Abhisit should have called elections shortly after being elected PM and before the protests started, but he had no obligation to do so, it was his choice, and the moment a small group took the the streets and started using violence to try and force him into that decision, i think the right thing to do was to deny them their demand, because to comply would be to perpetuate the circle of governments having their terms cut short, whether it be via coups or whether it be by mobs, and that perpetuation stands to cost a lot more than 90 lives.

[rixalex]

No, the Dem's coalition partners did not vote for AV because they wanted to (kind regards to Chumpol S.) but because they were forced to. That makes the government illegitimate. This is now common knowledge so why do you continue to lie?

Forced as in: if you don't do this, you won't make a lot of money. The poor darlings. Must have been terrified for their bank accounts.

And as far as Somchai was concerned, all the MPs voted for him to be PM because they sat down and studied his qualifications and saw what great leadership qualities he had. Nothing to do with being told to vote for him by someone else...

Wake up.

[whybother]

Who was stopping anyone from voting? Do you really think that a government should step down just because some people are protesting?

Why should the Democrats walk away? A majority of MPs voted for Abhisit as PM and he formed government. That makes it as legitimate as any other government in the last 5 years.

Should the PTP step down from government, since, obviously, the majority of the electorate find them unacceptable.

No, the Dem's coalition partners did not vote for AV because they wanted to (kind regards to Chumpol S.) but because they were forced to. That makes the government illegitimate. This is now common knowledge so why do you continue to lie?

How was he forced to do it? He said he didn't have choice. Why didn't he have a choice? Has Chumpol said why he didn't have a choice? His choice was to back the Democrats, and have a place at the trough, or not back the Democrats and not get a place at the trough.

Surely with your "beyond reasonable doubt" requirements, that would make the Dem government legitimate.

[whybother]

Indiscriminate firing implies a wanton disregard for life. It's easy to judge the soldiers, but they were mostly young, not that well trained people, experiencing the mayhem of what affectively amounted to warfare, for the first time in their lives; the pressures of dealing with a situation in which their lives were in real threat. They were the only people, besides perhaps medics and a few others, who had no choice in being there. Everyone else had complete freedom to walk away any moment they chose. And there were certainly plenty of pleas for them to do so, and warnings about the potential consequences of not. They didn't, and some of them paid dearly for that decision that they, and they alone, made.

But as is the way of the world these days, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Not, "if only i had left the protest and gone home when the government pleaded me to for the umpteenth time of asking, i wouldn't have been shot", but rather, "if those soldiers hadn't been so nasty and evil, firing back at our group, just because a couple of us were firing AK-47s at them, i wouldn't have been shot.... now where is my compensation?"

As far as the protesters were concerned those telling them to leave were illegitimate and had played a major role in stealing a right afforded to them in the Thai constitution, i.e. the right to vote. AV & the Dems had the opportunity to walk away before the reds even arrived in Bangkok, avoiding all violence & confrontation. This would have led to elections where the so called government would have been trounced as usual and put back to the back-benches where they belonged. Therefore just as you pin the blame on the protesters who refused to leave, we can just as easily lay the blame on the Dems/army/elite who forced unwilling politicians to side with the Dems to form a government unacceptable to the majority of the electorate.

You entire argument on behalf of the Reds is based on a false premise. Whatever the protesters thought, the government wasn't illegitimate. Yes it lacked a decent mandate, and yes, it came to being through some dodgy backroom deals involving unelected persons, but that didn't make it illegitimate and if anyone argues that is was, well then they would have to accept that almost all governments here have been illegitimate, not least the one directly before it in which Somchai came out of nowhere to suddenly be the one running the country (or at least supposedly running it).

I agree that Abhisit should have called elections shortly after being elected PM and before the protests started, but he had no obligation to do so, it was his choice, and the moment a small group took the the streets and started using violence to try and force him into that decision, i think the right thing to do was to deny them their demand, because to comply would be to perpetuate the circle of governments having their terms cut short, whether it be via coups or whether it be by mobs, and that perpetuation stands to cost a lot more than 90 lives.

Given that once the PPP were disbanded, the PTP could have called an election rather than going to parliament to elect a new PM, why should Abhisit call an election? PTP didn't want an election.

[phiphidon]

Who was stopping anyone from voting? Do you really think that a government should step down just because some people are protesting?

Why should the Democrats walk away? A majority of MPs voted for Abhisit as PM and he formed government. That makes it as legitimate as any other government in the last 5 years.

Should the PTP step down from government, since, obviously, the majority of the electorate find them unacceptable.

No, the Dem's coalition partners did not vote for AV because they wanted to (kind regards to Chumpol S.) but because they were forced to. That makes the government illegitimate. This is now common knowledge so why do you continue to lie?

How was he forced to do it? He said he didn't have choice. Why didn't he have a choice? Has Chumpol said why he didn't have a choice? His choice was to back the Democrats, and have a place at the trough, or not back the Democrats and not get a place at the trough.

Surely with your "beyond reasonable doubt" requirements, that would make the Dem government legitimate.

And there we go topic derailed, duty done.

[whybother]

And there we go topic derailed, duty done.

Yes. Congratulations for BirdPoo for doing that.

[rubl]

Who was stopping anyone from voting? Do you really think that a government should step down just because some people are protesting?

Why should the Democrats walk away? A majority of MPs voted for Abhisit as PM and he formed government. That makes it as legitimate as any other government in the last 5 years.

Should the PTP step down from government, since, obviously, the majority of the electorate find them unacceptable.

No, the Dem's coalition partners did not vote for AV because they wanted to (kind regards to Chumpol S.) but because they were forced to. That makes the government illegitimate. This is now common knowledge so why do you continue to lie?

How was he forced to do it? He said he didn't have choice. Why didn't he have a choice? Has Chumpol said why he didn't have a choice? His choice was to back the Democrats, and have a place at the trough, or not back the Democrats and not get a place at the trough.

Surely with your "beyond reasonable doubt" requirements, that would make the Dem government legitimate.

And there we go topic derailed, duty done.

blame Mr. Bird Poo who started the 'illegitimate' discussion.

BTW any confirmation that the clip you posted is indeed portraying one of the two sergeants questioned AND filmed on the 15th AND at the correct location ?

[rixalex]

Given that once the PPP were disbanded, the PTP could have called an election rather than going to parliament to elect a new PM, why should Abhisit call an election? PTP didn't want an election.

I think once you get into changing PM for the second, third time, it gets to the point where a fresh election is probably a good idea. But as you say, from Abhisit's point of view, the fact that PTP didn't call an election after the disbanding of PPP, and the fact that the Red shirts had no problem with that or with the way Somchai became PM, i can understand why he felt otherwise.

[birdpooguava]

Forced as in: if you don't do this, you won't make a lot of money. The poor darlings. Must have been terrified for their bank accounts.

And as far as Somchai was concerned, all the MPs voted for him to be PM because they sat down and studied his qualifications and saw what great leadership qualities he had. Nothing to do with being told to vote for him by someone else...

Wake up.

I'm awake and have quotes to prove my point about the illegitimate Dem govt. Please provide your evidence regarding Somchai's govt. instead of unsuccessfully trying to make witty comments with no backing

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

"During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government. Amid intense lobbying by both Puea Thai and Democrat camps, many key members of the coalition parties and key factions within them were seen visiting Gen Anupong at his official residence in the compound of the First Infantry Regiment off Vibhavadi RangsitRoad, both in small and large groups.

Among these special visitors were reportedly Newin Chidchob and Sora-at Klinprathum, two faction leaders in the now dissolved PPP. The two men were seen at Gen Anupong’sresidence on Dec 4 along with Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, the army’s chief-of-staff.Later, Pradit Phataraprasit, secretary-general of Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana party reportedly called on Gen Prayuth at his residence, also in the regiment compound.

In the meantime, Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsubankept in touch with Gen Anupong by phone. Mr Suthep and Gen Anupong became acquaintances when the Council for National Security was in power.

On Dec 6, shortly before the Democrat’s plan to form a new coalition government was announced, Mr Suthep reportedly led a group of key members of the Democrats’ prospective coalition partners to meet Gen Anupong at the residence of former army chief Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, who is well respected by Gen Anupong. Even though the meetings were supposed to be secret events, they ended up in the open because of the unusual manner of the visits. Suddenly, Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”.During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government. Amid intense lobbying by both Puea Thai and Democrat camps, many key members of the coalition parties and key factions within them were seen visiting Gen Anupong at his official residence in the compound of the First Infantry Regiment off Vibhavadi RangsitRoad, both in small and large groups.

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government." (Newin VS the army)

Edited September 1, 2012 by birdpooguava