Contentious Case Against Abhisit Marks A New Era

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Contentious case against Abhisit marks a new era

The Nation

Charging of ex-PM is a historic move but it could yield positive fruit

BANGKOK: -- Abhisit Vejjajiva looks set to be the first leader in Thai history who will face a murder charge, in relation to the death of a taxi driver during the red-shirt protest in May 2010. To say that the case is controversial is an understatement. The naming of Abhisit and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban as suspects is highly contentious. And so is the Department of Special Investigation's role in seeking "justice" for the victim.

Some may regard Abhisit as being responsible for Mr Phan Khamkong's death, while others will view the move to charge the former PM as politically motivated. Either way, Abhisit's case will set a precedent for Thai political history. Investigators, police and public prosecutors now have to pursue the case in earnest to enable Thais to come to terms with the violence in April and May 2010, which is essential for people to properly understand what occurred so the country can move on.

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) charged Abhisit, in his capacity as prime minister, and Suthep, the deputy prime minister, and accused them of being responsible for the death of Phan, who was shot dead by military personnel during operations to contain rioting, according to DSI chief Tarit Pengdith.

This is a landmark case as it is the first time a prime minister has been accused of being accountable for a death during the suppression of a political rally. There have been many other casualties during efforts to contain previous political protests but Thailand has never seen big-name political players held legally accountable for such actions.

Abhisit, as national leader, certainly faces questions over his accountability. But so do others in regard to the death of 91 people killed during the political violence in mid-2010. Whether you agree or disagree with the charges against Abhisit, given the various factors involved, a fair and transparent trial is the most sensible way to proceed.

To ensure a fair trial of the case, the hearing must involve truthful records of the situation. Evidence uncovered during the investigation into this death indicate that prior to the suppression operation, Abhisit and Suthep allowed the military to use lethal weapons as well as snipers against protesters and rioters. Before that, there were attempts by the government to negotiate and end the mass rally in a peaceful manner. Events leading to the crackdown order must be seriously and honestly reviewed.

Abhisit was known to be attempting to negotiate for a political truce. For instance, he offered to dissolve the parliament in exchange for peaceful dispersal of the red-shirt protesters who camped out in the centre of Bangkok. But his offer was rejected by the red-shirt leaders. At that time, Abhisit, the PM, was under pressure to act as the red-shirts had paralysed the capital for weeks and there had already been about two dozen deaths.

The fateful dramas that followed were complicated by factors such as the authorities' lack of training to manage protests, especially when crowds turn violent and use weapons against state officials. There is evidence of arms being used by both sides.

Abhisit's case should set a precedent that leaders can be held responsible for people's deaths and will be accountable. The same could apply for Somchai Wongsawat, his predecessor who ordered police to disperse yellow-shirt non-violent protesters in October 2008 - a crackdown that resulted in many injuries and the death of two non-violent protesters.

The trial should seek to establish if Abhisit was solely accountable for Phan's death. The trial should take into account all incidents including protest leaders' responses to his offer to allow an election if they peacefully dispersed, as well as how they conducted themselves on the rally stage. It should seek to reveal whether hard-line leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship tried their utmost to avoid the tragic events that transpired in May 2010.

In April 2009, red-shirt leaders staged a rowdy protest in Pattaya that forced international leaders to flee and the East Asian Summit to be cancelled. Shortly after, an angry mob attacked Abhisit's car in an incident many say was a real threat to his life. The authorities, at that time, used rubber bullets against the protesters to stop a potentially dangerous rally in Bangkok. Dozens were injured but there were no reports of deaths and the crowd was dispersed.

But in April 2010 it became obvious that opponents of the Abhisit government were armed and violent. There was evidence of "black shirt" attackers, who were accused of killing troops seeking to disperse red-shirt protesters from Khok Wua Intersection.

If Abhisit is guilty, he must be punished. "Forgetting" this trauma is not a solution for the country to move forward. Now that this historic charge has been launched, the DSI and the relevant agencies have to pursue the case in earnest to bring justice for all.

For reconciliation can probably only really begin once the truth is revealed and the justice of these events is properly weighed.

-- The Nation 2012-12-10

[Rich teacher]

"Whether you agree or disagree with the charges against Abhisit, given the various factors involved, a fair and transparent trial is the most sensible way to proceed." Unlike the murky proceedings against Thaksin with the Ratchada case, where the reluctant prosecutor, the FIDF, had to be threatened with legal action by the junta appointed AEC, before they filed charges against TS. Their reluctance stemmed from their view that the deal had been transparent & the price received fair. In fact the National Anti-Corruption Committee had approved the sale before the land was finally transferred, saying it was not a breach of NACC Act, unlike the final verdict.

[righteous]

This compilation of events as noted above, leading to these charges against Abhisit, are not agreed to by many who question it:

• Did Abhisit negotiate? An offer to dissolve Parliament did not include a specific election date, the key demand of the protesters. The offrer was not rejected as some say. It was counter-offered. To denigrate protesters by suggesting Thaksin telephoned in a controlling way, ignores who may have been calling Abhisit. He was not "flying solo". In the end, this complaint is a red herring anyway. Until an offer becomes an agreement, it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
  
• One must keep in mind the overwhelming shadow of the coup which precipitated all of this. So was this a "crackdown reflecting legitimate state responsibilities" or was it an attack by pro-coup elements against their opposites?
  
• Who precipitated the violence? There are some who say violence only occurred when the protesters were attacked, and their self-defence was understandable.
  
• To characterize the airport in the same way as R'song, implying valid comparisons between Somchai and Abhisit doesn't fit the facts. In reality, there is much cynicism about how this Abhisit charge will be conducted, as long as no Airport seizure leaders have ever darkened a jail, as compared to the numerous times this happened to their opposites. This is the most egregious example of 'double standards'
  
• The denigration of protesters by only referring to them as an "angry mob" and depriving them of political context is also not helpful to an understanding of this thing. This was a clash between two political forces. The protesters knew political balances in Thailand and they were vindicated by the subsequent election. Those election results put their key demands into focus. It is just very unfortunate that election date couldn't have been agreed upon, saving all those lives.
  

Edited December 10, 2012 by righteous

[virtualtraveller]

Bottom line, if an armed mob are holding your capital city centre hostage, making unreasonable demands (in no democracy in the world is it appropriate to demand an elected leader step down instantly, and under the circumstances of Ratchaprasong), you have little choice but to send in the army. A state of Emergency was declared, this gave the protesters and those in the area several days to disperse, knowing full well that their lives were at risk. Let Abhisit have his day in court and let the court subpeona Thaksin et al to explain their motives. If found guilty that's fine but think about how easily the PAD will employ a similar tactic on Yingluck. Simple as that. A new easy way to force a govt to quit.

[whybother]

This compilation of events as noted above, leading to these charges against Abhisit, are not agreed to by many who question it:

• Did Abhisit negotiate? An offer to dissolve Parliament did not include a specific election date, the key demand of the protesters. The offrer was not rejected as some say. It was counter-offered. To denigrate protesters by suggesting Thaksin telephoned in a controlling way, ignores who may have been calling Abhisit. He was not "flying solo". In the end, this complaint is a red herring anyway. Until an offer becomes an agreement, it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
  

They have to have the election within 45 days of parliament being dissolved, so the idea that a "specific election date hadn't been set" is a furphy. Can't the red shirts count?

• One must keep in mind the overwhelming shadow of the coup which precipitated all of this. So was this a "crackdown reflecting legitimate state responsibilities" or was it an attack by pro-coup elements against their opposites?
  

Why would there have been a coup? You've been listening to Jatuporn too much!

• Who precipitated the violence? There are some who say violence only occurred when the protesters were attacked, and their self-defence was understandable.
  

The red shirts precipitated the violence, firstly when they threatened to burn down Bangkok, then when they stormed parliament and Thaicom. Then they escalated things blowing up a colonel. If the red shirts hadn't had their armed militia, would there have been ANY deaths?

• 
  

• To characterize the airport in the same way as R'song, implying valid comparisons between Somchai and Abhisit doesn't fit the facts. In reality, there is much cynicism about how this Abhisit charge will be conducted, as long as no Airport seizure leaders have ever darkened a jail, as compared to the numerous times this happened to their opposites. This is the most egregious example of 'double standards'
  
• The denigration of protesters by only referring to them as an "angry mob" and depriving them of political context is also not helpful to an understanding of this thing. This was a clash between two political forces. The protesters knew political balances in Thailand and they were vindicated by the subsequent election. Those election results put their key demands into focus. It is just very unfortunate that election date couldn't have been agreed upon, saving all those lives.
  

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

[philw]

An important step in the right direction when even the Nation calls for a serious investigation and a proper trial of a Prime Minister.

This is unprecedented and surely in the interests of accountability and justice.

Inherent in the article is the admission that there is at least a case.................

Progress indeed.

[Thai at Heart]

it marks a massive stretch in legal reality.

[jcw]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

[edwinchester]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

Crimes against fashion for one.

[Soupdragon]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

AWOL.

[petedk]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

AWOL.

A bit off topic but she's doing it again today according to Bangkok Post. She's "sick" and won't attend a Constitution Day rally but there are photos on Facebook showing her at a wedding party last night.

Pheu Thai spokesman Nopparit asked the opponents not to "politicise the matter"

Edited December 10, 2012 by petedk

[OzMick]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

False pretences

[Soutpeel]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

Crimes against fashion for one.

impersonating a prime minister ?

[Skywalker69]

Abhisit was known to be attempting to negotiate for a political truce. For instance, he offered to dissolve the parliament in exchange for peaceful dispersal of the red-shirt protesters who camped out in the centre of Bangkok. But his offer was rejected by the red-shirt leaders. At that time, Abhisit, the PM, was under pressure to act as the red-shirts had paralysed the capital for weeks and there had already been about two dozen deaths.[/color]]

It wasen´t Thaksins agenda.

[Soutpeel]

Bottom line, if an armed mob are holding your capital city centre hostage, making unreasonable demands (in no democracy in the world is it appropriate to demand an elected leader step down instantly, and under the circumstances of Ratchaprasong), you have little choice but to send in the army. A state of Emergency was declared, this gave the protesters and those in the area several days to disperse, knowing full well that their lives were at risk. Let Abhisit have his day in court and let the court subpeona Thaksin et al to explain their motives. If found guilty that's fine but think about how easily the PAD will employ a similar tactic on Yingluck. Simple as that. A new easy way to force a govt to quit.

There is a very easy solution to all this.....Abhisit stands trial once our man in Dubai has done his time in a Thai jail.... .......our man in dubai claims all charged against him were politically motivated, and it appears Abhisit needs to do the same....say the charges are politically motivated and he doesnt recognise the jurisdiction of the Thai courts (where have heard this one before?)

[Soutpeel]

When Yinluck is finished as PM,

Has she ever started being a PM ?

[Skywalker69]

Something is wrong with my quote button, sorry.

Abhisit was known to be attempting to negotiate for a political truce. For instance, he offered to dissolve the parliament in exchange for peaceful dispersal of the red-shirt protesters who camped out in the centre of Bangkok. But his offer was rejected by the red-shirt leaders. At that time, Abhisit, the PM, was under pressure to act as the red-shirts had paralysed the capital for weeks and there had already been about two dozen deaths.

It wasen´t Thaksins agenda.

[Pimay1]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

False pretences

Not being a real PM, only being a clone thus ruling under false pretence.

[righteous]

Something is wrong with my quote button, sorry.

Abhisit was known to be attempting to negotiate for a political truce. For instance, he offered to dissolve the parliament in exchange for peaceful dispersal of the red-shirt protesters who camped out in the centre of Bangkok. But his offer was rejected by the red-shirt leaders. At that time, Abhisit, the PM, was under pressure to act as the red-shirts had paralysed the capital for weeks and there had already been about two dozen deaths.

It wasen´t Thaksins agenda.

The offer was not rejected. There was a counter-offer which was not responded to. This fact exposes that televised discussion as being simply for public consumption, with no intention to negotiate toward an agreement.

This wrongfull spin of "offer rejection" is often used as a way of justifying the attack at R'song.

If Abhisit was under pressure to act, A political act was called for in this instance of political upheavals. It was perfectly reasonable for these protesters to be against a coup, needing to undo it in order to return to electoral politics. They knew they were in the electoral majority as the subsequent election proved, and had every right to be governed accordingly. A politically negotiated conclusion was very possible, as these protesters wanted nothing worse than to go home.

To send in the troops in the face of an easily achievable political solution was unconscionable.

The so-called paralysis of the Capital paled in comparison to the paralysis of the country via a coup. To characterize the protesters as an anarchic, non-political rabble outside the context of a coup is reprehensible.

May coup's be relegated to the "dustbin of history" and may Electoral Democracy reigh supreme, in spite of its' obvious Thailand deficiencies.

Edited December 10, 2012 by righteous

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies deleted. Further accusations of other posters being trolls will get you suspended. If you believe a post contravenes the rules, then use the report button.

Responding to a troll post is trolling.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Scott

[sms747]

it marks a massive stretch in legal reality.

As do most other legal proceedings here. Like most rich folks, unless they are really out to geet you as inMr T's case, Mark has not much to worry about, just a big pay day for the lawyers

[h90]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

Crimes against fashion for one.

Crimes against common sense.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. Please stick to the topic.

[whybother]

The offer was not rejected. There was a counter-offer which was not responded to. This fact exposes that televised discussion as being simply for public consumption, with no intention to negotiate toward an agreement.

This wrongfull spin of "offer rejection" is often used as a way of justifying the attack at R'song.

If Abhisit was under pressure to act, A political act was called for in this instance of political upheavals. It was perfectly reasonable for these protesters to be against a coup, needing to undo it in order to return to electoral politics. They knew they were in the electoral majority as the subsequent election proved, and had every right to be governed accordingly. A politically negotiated conclusion was very possible, as these protesters wanted nothing worse than to go home.

To send in the troops in the face of an easily achievable political solution was unconscionable.

The so-called paralysis of the Capital paled in comparison to the paralysis of the country via a coup. To characterize the protesters as an anarchic, non-political rabble outside the context of a coup is reprehensible.

May coup's be relegated to the "dustbin of history" and may Electoral Democracy reigh supreme, in spite of its' obvious Thailand deficiencies.

They wanted an election "Now". Abhisit rejected that. They were offered an election "Later". They rejected that.

Abhisit was legally in office. He compromised by offering an earlier election than was required.

Should Yingluck step down if 100,000 people come out to protest?

[Soupdragon]

The offer was not rejected. There was a counter-offer which was not responded to. This fact exposes that televised discussion as being simply for public consumption, with no intention to negotiate toward an agreement.

This wrongfull spin of "offer rejection" is often used as a way of justifying the attack at R'song.

If Abhisit was under pressure to act, A political act was called for in this instance of political upheavals. It was perfectly reasonable for these protesters to be against a coup, needing to undo it in order to return to electoral politics. They knew they were in the electoral majority as the subsequent election proved, and had every right to be governed accordingly. A politically negotiated conclusion was very possible, as these protesters wanted nothing worse than to go home.

To send in the troops in the face of an easily achievable political solution was unconscionable.

The so-called paralysis of the Capital paled in comparison to the paralysis of the country via a coup. To characterize the protesters as an anarchic, non-political rabble outside the context of a coup is reprehensible.

May coup's be relegated to the "dustbin of history" and may Electoral Democracy reigh supreme, in spite of its' obvious Thailand deficiencies.

They wanted an election "Now". Abhisit rejected that. They were offered an election "Later". They rejected that.

Abhisit was legally in office. He compromised by offering an earlier election than was required.

Should Yingluck step down if 100,000 people come out to protest?

Yingluck needs to step up before she can step down.

[Skywalker69]

The offer was not rejected. There was a counter-offer which was not responded to. This fact exposes that televised discussion as being simply for public consumption, with no intention to negotiate toward an agreement.

This wrongfull spin of "offer rejection" is often used as a way of justifying the attack at R'song.

If Abhisit was under pressure to act, A political act was called for in this instance of political upheavals. It was perfectly reasonable for these protesters to be against a coup, needing to undo it in order to return to electoral politics. They knew they were in the electoral majority as the subsequent election proved, and had every right to be governed accordingly. A politically negotiated conclusion was very possible, as these protesters wanted nothing worse than to go home.

To send in the troops in the face of an easily achievable political solution was unconscionable.

The so-called paralysis of the Capital paled in comparison to the paralysis of the country via a coup. To characterize the protesters as an anarchic, non-political rabble outside the context of a coup is reprehensible.

May coup's be relegated to the "dustbin of history" and may Electoral Democracy reigh supreme, in spite of its' obvious Thailand deficiencies.

They wanted an election "Now". Abhisit rejected that. They were offered an election "Later". They rejected that.

Abhisit was legally in office. He compromised by offering an earlier election than was required.

Should Yingluck step down if 100,000 people come out to protest?

Yingluck needs to step up before she can step down.

Good point.

[chuang]

When Yinluck is finished as PM, I wonder what she will be charged with ???

Frying noodles at a market stall.....555555555555555

[FRR]

Bottom line, if an armed mob are holding your capital city centre hostage, making unreasonable demands (in no democracy in the world is it appropriate to demand an elected leader step down instantly, and under the circumstances of Ratchaprasong), you have little choice but to send in the army. A state of Emergency was declared, this gave the protesters and those in the area several days to disperse, knowing full well that their lives were at risk. Let Abhisit have his day in court and let the court subpeona Thaksin et al to explain their motives. If found guilty that's fine but think about how easily the PAD will employ a similar tactic on Yingluck. Simple as that. A new easy way to force a govt to quit.

Not sure it is fair to charactise Ahbisit as the democratically elected leader at that time. He was the leader of the democratics which lost the Dec 2007 election. Samak was installed by parliament as the prime minister. He was then removed for taking a payment to appear on a cooking show. After that Somchai was prime minister. It was democratic party members who setup the PAD movement and started the protests. Abhisit came to power through the support of Newin's party after the coup government exited the scene. Abhisit never won an election!

Edited December 10, 2012 by Scott
formatting

[OzMick]

Something is wrong with my quote button, sorry.

Abhisit was known to be attempting to negotiate for a political truce. For instance, he offered to dissolve the parliament in exchange for peaceful dispersal of the red-shirt protesters who camped out in the centre of Bangkok. But his offer was rejected by the red-shirt leaders. At that time, Abhisit, the PM, was under pressure to act as the red-shirts had paralysed the capital for weeks and there had already been about two dozen deaths.

It wasen´t Thaksins agenda.

The offer was not rejected. There was a counter-offer which was not responded to. This fact exposes that televised discussion as being simply for public consumption, with no intention to negotiate toward an agreement.

This wrongfull spin of "offer rejection" is often used as a way of justifying the attack at R'song.

If Abhisit was under pressure to act, A political act was called for in this instance of political upheavals. It was perfectly reasonable for these protesters to be against a coup, needing to undo it in order to return to electoral politics. They knew they were in the electoral majority as the subsequent election proved, and had every right to be governed accordingly. A politically negotiated conclusion was very possible, as these protesters wanted nothing worse than to go home.

To send in the troops in the face of an easily achievable political solution was unconscionable.

The so-called paralysis of the Capital paled in comparison to the paralysis of the country via a coup. To characterize the protesters as an anarchic, non-political rabble outside the context of a coup is reprehensible.

May coup's be relegated to the "dustbin of history" and may Electoral Democracy reigh supreme, in spite of its' obvious Thailand deficiencies.

Hmmm.........as I recall your so-called counter offer was the same as the original demand, which is a refusal to negotiate. But I may be wrong, and that you will supply proof of a more reasonable proposition.

[whybother]

Not sure it is fair to charactise Ahbisit as the democraticall lected leader at that time. He was the leader of the democratics which lost the Dec 2007 election. Samak was installed by parliament as the prime minister. He was then removed for taking a payment to appear on a cooking show. After that Somchai was prime minister. It was democratic party members who setup the PAD movement and started the protests. Abhisit can to power through the support of Newin's party after the coup government exited the scene. Abhisit never won an election!

The coup government exited the scene in 2007 after the elections. Abhisit came to power after the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The then new PTP (caretaker government) decided not to call an election.

Samak never won an election either. He needed a coalition to form government. Abhisit (an elected MP) also formed a coalition government after he was elected PM in parliament (as were Samak and Somchai).