Nattawut Tells Red Shirts To Refrain Rallying At D S I This Thursday

[webfact]

Red Shirts told to avoid DSI Thursday

By English News

BANGKOK, Dec 11 – Deputy Commerce Minister and Red Shirt co-leader Nattawut Saikua today called on pro-government activists to refrain from rallying at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) Thursday when two opposition Democrat Party MPs appear to acknowledge criminal charges against them.

Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then deputy, Suthep Thuagsuban, are scheduled to meet with DSI officials to hear allegations of conspiring in the murders of Red Shirt supporters during Bangkok’s political upheaval in 2010 in their capacity as supervisors of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES).

Mr Suthep was officially appointed director of CRES, which was set up to specifically to deal with the civil protest.

Mr Nattawut said the Red Shirt demonstration at the DSI, if organised, will contribute to verbal attacks by their opponents.

“However, it can be done if relatives of the deceased activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair,” he said.

The DSI earlier implicated Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep with murder following a ruling by the Criminal Court that taxi driver Phan Kamkong was shot dead by soldiers under CRES command.

He said the government is currently beset with several issues including the constitutional amendment process and the unexpected appearance on state-run television Channel 11 of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra which has drawn criticisms from several anti-government quarters.

Mr Nattawut, however, defended the ousted prime minister and said it was not inappropriate (for Mr Thaksin) to pay homage to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in his capacity as a Thai citizen.

Mr Thaksin’s appearance during a Thai boxing event in Macau over the weekend has stirred an uproar in Thailand but the deputy commerce minister stood firm that it will not have any negative impact on the government since the former premier merely showed his loyalty to the monarch.

Regarding a move against the government’s unrelenting attempt to amend the constitution now pending parliamentary debate in its third reading, Mr Nattawut said it is an ideological conflict between liberal democratic and conservative factions in Thai society.

The opposition raised the conflict as a condition (to avoid amending the constitution), but the government must listen to the majority of people, Mr Nattawut said. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-12-11

[Thaddeus]

“However, it can be done if relatives of the deceased activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair,” he said.

Bail?

[righteous]

Sometimes obvious things get lost in the shuffle and "Political Noise". Take for instance this reference to affinity clothing colours. An example of this is in the above article and its' reference to the "Red Shirts". It deprives this Movement of a political context. Their defining moment came with their protest against a coup (2006), and electoral demands of 2010. This puts things in "Political perspective"

Referring to Bangkok's political upheaval of 2010, ignores the political upheaval of the 2006 coup. When contextualizing these two events together, makes some sense of the 2010 "political upheaval" and "civil protest" referenced above. It is not helpful when generic, non-political terminology is used when describing political events

Suggesting that the Thaksin TV thing of yesterday has "Stirred an uproar in Thailand" or has "the Govt. beset", gives far too much credence to the opposition trying to score political points. Opposition noise does not equate to an "uproar in Thailand" or "besetting the Govt".

The article above does a good thing when qualifying itself. On the one hand it impugnes negative motives to the Govt when identifying its' constitution revision policy as "unrelenting", but then contextualizes it properly by pointing out the ideological underpinnings of these initiatives in its' quote of Natthawut.

Edited December 11, 2012 by righteous

[ratcatcher]

"....“However, it can be done if relatives of the deceased activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair,” he said.

In that case, expect a full swarm of protesters, because no doubt Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep will request bail, which I believe is normal practice. There is no risk of flight from these two. They are ready to be heard in a court of law whenever that may be convened. However, Mr Nattawut says protesters may show up if bail is requested.

In other words " Come on down and make a big noise"

[saltandpepper]

What a good man he is! NOT

[whybother]

Why do red shirts always need to be told not to protest?

[Nickymaster]

Why they never mention the real reason they want to amend the constitution?

Haven't we learned from Egypt that you cannot just amend the constitution?

[whybother]

Sometimes obvious things get lost in the shuffle and "Political Noise". Take for instance this reference to affinity clothing colours. An example of this is in the above article and its' reference to the "Red Shirts". It deprives this Movement of a political context. Their defining moment came with their protest against a coup (2006), and electoral demands of 2010. This puts things in "Political perspective"

Referring to Bangkok's political upheaval of 2010, ignores the political upheaval of the 2006 coup. When contextualizing these two events together, makes some sense of the 2010 "political upheaval" and "civil protest" referenced above. It is not helpful when generic, non-political terminology is used when describing political events

Suggesting that the Thaksin TV thing of yesterday has "Stirred an uproar in Thailand" or has "the Govt. beset", gives far too much credence to the opposition trying to score political points. Opposition noise does not equate to an "uproar in Thailand" or "besetting the Govt".

The article above does a good thing when qualifying itself. On the one hand it impugnes negative motives to the Govt when identifying its' constitution revision policy as "unrelenting", but then contextualizes it properly by pointing out the ideological underpinnings of these initiatives in its' quote of Natthawut.

They call themselves "Red Shirts". They wear Red Shirts.

You know that duck saying?

[Nickymaster]

Why do red shirts always need to be told not to protest?

Or,

Why do they always have to tell the red shirts when to protest?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Nickymaster

[MunterHunter]

I read this more as "Come protest all you want to - I'm only saying don't just for show! <snigger snigger>"

[fstarbkk]

I read this more as "Come protest all you want to - I'm only saying don't just for show! <snigger snigger>"

He speaks with a forked tongue!

[dcutman]

Its like a bunch of 10 year old children dictating who is the boss of the playground. Is it possible to just send them all on a time out to the corner.

[siampolee]

Nickymaster post # 7

Haven't we learned from Egypt that you cannot just amend the constitution?

Excellent comment. + 5

Not at all pompous or self righteous.

Why bother post # 8

Spot on + 5

They call themselves "Red Shirts". They wear Red Shirts.

You know that duck saying?

None so blind as those who will not see.

[ramrod711]

Mr Nattawut, however, defended the ousted prime minister and said it was not inappropriate (for Mr Thaksin) to pay homage to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in his capacity as a Thai citizen.

I would have thought that it is inappropriate, considering that he's a convicted felon on the run from justice. I might add that Nattawut being in government while facing terrorism charges, is definitely inappropriate. He said that he would take responsibility for red shirt actions, he should resign, he hasn't, he lied.

[fareastguy]

Quote: Mr Thaksin’s appearance during a Thai boxing event in Macau over the weekend has stirred an uproar in Thailand but the deputy commerce minister stood firm that it will not have any negative impact on the government since the former premier merely showed his loyalty to the monarch.

Thaksin shows loyalty only to himself, his family & his pawns.. how he can say he has any respect for the king is beyond me, especially after his past & recent actions. As for his younger sister showing loyalty during his majesties birthday ceremonies I don't know how she can even stay in the same room as him.

[lemoncake]

Mr Nattawut, however, defended the ousted prime minister and said it was not inappropriate (for Mr Thaksin) to pay homage to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in his capacity as a Thai citizen.

yeah and a convicted criminal on the run as well as a citizen of at least another 3 countries.

I guess all convicts should be given the right to appear on tv because they are Thai citizens

[lemoncake]

I read this more as "Come protest all you want to - I'm only saying don't just for show! <snigger snigger>"

i agree with you, especially when he calls on "relatives"

so the bf/gf of a 5th cousin of the uncle of the brother of the killed is welcome to come, so with 90 victims, we should expect at least 5000 people or so

[rubl]

I'm somewhat confused. "meet with DSI officials to hear allegations" I understand, but shouldn't the official charging be done at a court, rather than DSI offices, with DSI investigators submitting the cases to the relevant court?

BTW did k. Nattawut speak as cabinet Dept. Minister, Pheu Thai party list MP or just as UDD (co-)leader ?

[OzMick]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

[righteous]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

This BS artist happens to be one of the most powerful leaders within the electoral majority of Thailand, and for good reason.

Put him and Abhisit on the same stage and discover who is the lesser politician, charismatically speaking.

So all those thousands of voters are screwed up, or this "BS" characterization is.

Edited December 11, 2012 by righteous

[valerian]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

This BS artist happens to be one of the most powerful leaders within the electoral majority of Thailand, and for good reason.

Put him and Abhisit on the same stage and discover who is the lesser politician, charismatically speaking.

So all those thousands of voters are screwed up, or this "BS" characterization is.

Oh.. but you see.. Abhisit invited the reds to televised debates.

After which they fled... humiliated after having portrayed themselves as complete morons on national tv.

Now you didn't see those shows, did you?

"Powerful leader for good reason".. thats some serious BS right there.

He's a nutter, only good for delivering inflaming monolouges.

Which is why he never ever takes part in debates with the opposition.

As neither of the red "powerful leaders" do.

Yingluck was invited to debates, but yelped and vanished.

Really great stuff that is, that your mentors are made of.

[Siripon]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

This BS artist happens to be one of the most powerful leaders within the electoral majority of Thailand, and for good reason.

Put him and Abhisit on the same stage and discover who is the lesser politician, charismatically speaking.

So all those thousands of voters are screwed up, or this "BS" characterization is.

Powerful!!He was transferred out of the Agriculture ministry because of his failed promise to shore up the price of rubber and his ludicrous idea to build roads out of rubber. Now his latest 'idea'is to transport perishable fruit to markets around Thailand quickly.

Has this expensive wine drinker, failed in every eelection in Nakhon Sri Thammarat, ever been on a train in Thailand? They never arrive on time, usually a few hours late.

[AleG]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

The Red Mob will think what the propagandists want them to think, "look at those double standards again!, they walk away without even having to pay bail as our poor oppressed comrades!"

[saltandpepper]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

This BS artist happens to be one of the most powerful leaders within the electoral majority of Thailand, and for good reason.

Put him and Abhisit on the same stage and discover who is the lesser politician, charismatically speaking.

So all those thousands of voters are screwed up, or this "BS" characterization is.

My my my........Abhisit would speak with facts, reason, and most certainly courteous manners.

As for your hero, he might very well come on stage with foam at the corner of his mouth, a bottle full of gasoline, and only the usual verbal diarrhea.

Yes, please bring them on for all to see.

[Skywalker69]

I read this more as "Come protest all you want to - I'm only saying don't just for show! <snigger snigger>"

i agree with you, especially when he calls on "relatives"

so the bf/gf of a 5th cousin of the uncle of the brother of the killed is welcome to come, so with 90 victims, we should expect at least 5000 people or so

atleast this time he didn´t tell them to bring one liter bottles to burn the city.

[smedly]

I'm somewhat confused. "meet with DSI officials to hear allegations" I understand, but shouldn't the official charging be done at a court, rather than DSI offices, with DSI investigators submitting the cases to the relevant court?

BTW did k. Nattawut speak as cabinet Dept. Minister, Pheu Thai party list MP or just as UDD (co-)leader ?

I haven't understood any of this as you say above, here are the points that don't make sense to me -

1. A Thai court rules that the Taxi driver was killed by the army - was this an inquest into his death - why didn't they clasify the death, being hit by a stray bullet is hardly murder so why the murder charge.

2. How come Tarit Pengdith of the DSI is not also being charged as he was head of CRES at the time of the Red Shirt Terrorist invasion of Bangkok (using lethal weapons against the army and extreme violence) - if didn't agree with the official operation to remove the protestors as he claims he should have said so at the time and stood down

3. If this charge of murder is lawful - why are the redshirt leaders not being charged with the murder of army personel, why only one murder charge as 90 people lost their lives

4. Why are the courts even allowing this case to be heard

5. What powers does the DSI have - why are they deciding about bail conditions - surely a job for a Thai court

This whole affair makes a mockery of Thai legal process - it's hard to understand how any of this nonesense could proceed with any legal foundation - but TIT were it seems anything goes

[Skywalker69]

I'm somewhat confused. "meet with DSI officials to hear allegations" I understand, but shouldn't the official charging be done at a court, rather than DSI offices, with DSI investigators submitting the cases to the relevant court?

BTW did k. Nattawut speak as cabinet Dept. Minister, Pheu Thai party list MP or just as UDD (co-)leader ?

I haven't understood any of this as you say above, here are the points that don't make sense to me -

1. A Thai court rules that the Taxi driver was killed by the army - was this an inquest into his death - why didn't they clasify the death, being hit by a stray bullet is hardly murder so why the murder charge.

2. How come Tarit Pengdith of the DSI is not also being charged as he was head of CRES at the time of the Red Shirt Terrorist invasion of Bangkok (using lethal weapons against the army and extreme violence) - if didn't agree with the official operation to remove the protestors as he claims he should have said so at the time and stood down

3. If this charge of murder is lawful - why are the redshirt leaders not being charged with the murder of army personel, why only one murder charge as 90 people lost their lives

4. Why are the courts even allowing this case to be heard

5. What powers does the DSI have - why are they deciding about bail conditions - surely a job for a Thai court

This whole affair makes a mockery of Thai legal process - it's hard to understand how any of this nonesense could proceed with any legal foundation - but TIT were it seems anything goes

I can spell it in three words. Thaksin is desperate.

[smedly]

I'm somewhat confused. "meet with DSI officials to hear allegations" I understand, but shouldn't the official charging be done at a court, rather than DSI offices, with DSI investigators submitting the cases to the relevant court?

BTW did k. Nattawut speak as cabinet Dept. Minister, Pheu Thai party list MP or just as UDD (co-)leader ?

I haven't understood any of this as you say above, here are the points that don't make sense to me -

1. A Thai court rules that the Taxi driver was killed by the army - was this an inquest into his death - why didn't they clasify the death, being hit by a stray bullet is hardly murder so why the murder charge.

2. How come Tarit Pengdith of the DSI is not also being charged as he was head of CRES at the time of the Red Shirt Terrorist invasion of Bangkok (using lethal weapons against the army and extreme violence) - if didn't agree with the official operation to remove the protestors as he claims he should have said so at the time and stood down

3. If this charge of murder is lawful - why are the redshirt leaders not being charged with the murder of army personel, why only one murder charge as 90 people lost their lives

4. Why are the courts even allowing this case to be heard

5. What powers does the DSI have - why are they deciding about bail conditions - surely a job for a Thai court

This whole affair makes a mockery of Thai legal process - it's hard to understand how any of this nonesense could proceed with any legal foundation - but TIT were it seems anything goes

If I was AV right now I'd be applying to the high court or even the Constitutional court for a full judicial reveiw of this whole process to determine it's legality under Thai Thai law and the constitution before it makes Thailand and this government look even silly'er in the eyes of the world.

[smedly]

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

The Red Mob will think what the propagandists want them to think, "look at those double standards again!, they walk away without even having to pay bail as our poor oppressed comrades!"

I wonder what sort of police presence there will be at the DSI in response to this illegal gathering of red shirts

[ratcatcher]

I'm somewhat confused. "meet with DSI officials to hear allegations" I understand, but shouldn't the official charging be done at a court, rather than DSI offices, with DSI investigators submitting the cases to the relevant court?

BTW did k. Nattawut speak as cabinet Dept. Minister, Pheu Thai party list MP or just as UDD (co-)leader ?

I haven't understood any of this as you say above, here are the points that don't make sense to me -

1. A Thai court rules that the Taxi driver was killed by the army - was this an inquest into his death - why didn't they clasify the death, being hit by a stray bullet is hardly murder so why the murder charge.

2. How come Tarit Pengdith of the DSI is not also being charged as he was head of CRES at the time of the Red Shirt Terrorist invasion of Bangkok (using lethal weapons against the army and extreme violence) - if didn't agree with the official operation to remove the protestors as he claims he should have said so at the time and stood down

3. If this charge of murder is lawful - why are the redshirt leaders not being charged with the murder of army personel, why only one murder charge as 90 people lost their lives

4. Why are the courts even allowing this case to be heard

5. What powers does the DSI have - why are they deciding about bail conditions - surely a job for a Thai court

This whole affair makes a mockery of Thai legal process - it's hard to understand how any of this nonesense could proceed with any legal foundation - but TIT were it seems anything goes

If I was AV right now I'd be applying to the high court or even the Constitutional court for a full judicial reveiw of this whole process to determine it's legality under Thai Thai law and the constitution before it makes Thailand and this government look even silly'er in the eyes of the world.

Good points, but Abhisit and Suthep are no fools and are not surrounded by sycophantic yes-men.

They probably have a strategy worked out regarding the legality of this whole charade.

These are early days in this turn of events and as Skywalker stated "Thaksin is desperate", even though he claims to be unconcerned about living abroad, the fact is he can't wait to come back to Thailand, sort things out to his satisfaction and take up the reins of power again.

Many think Thaksin is really smart, but Abhisit may be his equal. Time will tell.