Yingluck's Aide Accused Of Blocking U S A Today Interview With Abhisit

[webfact]

PM's aide accused of blocking USA Today interview with Abhisit
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Democrat Party spokesperson Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said he had evidence to prove that the government - through PM Yingluck Shinawatra's aide Suranand Vejjajiva - had tried to stop USA Today from interviewing opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Chavanond said the evidence came in the form of emails exchanged between the newspaper and Abhisit, which clearly showed that Suranand had stopped the interview from taking place.

Chavanond said he will be submitting the evidence to the Office of the Ombudsman demanding that it find out if Suranand had breached the Constitution's Article 46 paragraph 3.

-- The Nation 2013-05-10

[rubl]

Well, like the blocked rallies upcountry, obviously the people don't want these speeches. Allegedly that is. Therefor in a democracy like Thailand those speeches will be blocked. I'm sure if Mr. Kerry had bothered to ask (assuming he knew) the Minister of Foreign Affairs k. Surapong would have been perfectly able to explain this Thai democracy version.

[gl555]

Everyone rejoice red shirt democracy where the rice planters are allowed to intimidate judges and free speech doesn't apply to anyone but themselves!

[Zpete]

Democracy used in the same sentence as, Thailand.

Get real.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Zpete

[Locationthailand]

A Vejjajiva blocks an interview with a Vejjajiva - family feud or sibling rivalry? Hmmm... a turncoat in the PTP camp - the mind boggles.

[OZEMADE]

So the only real evidence they have is emails.

Chavanond said the evidence came in the form of emails exchanged between the newspaper and Abhisit.

So Abhisit said it was stopped, or the newspaper said it was stopped. That is the evidence, give me a break.

[chainarong]

Well I am surprised Abhisit didn't go to fall back mode , Skype, with all the tech around today the USA team could have secured an interview if they tried , dissidents in China do it all the time under house arrest , drives the PLA propaganda nuts.

[rubl]

Obviously email has no value and wikileaks is passé, but facebook pages are still legal proof.

[hyperdimension]

So the only real evidence they have is emails.

Chavanond said the evidence came in the form of emails exchanged between the newspaper and Abhisit.

So Abhisit said it was stopped, or the newspaper said it was stopped. That is the evidence, give me a break.

None of us know the contents of the evidence. USA Today could have named Suranand in their email messages to Abhisit. We'll have to wait and see.

What right did Suranand have to block the interview anyway, if he did?

Edited May 10, 2013 by hyperdimension

[kimamey]

This doesn't make sense. The first paragraph says 'tried to stop' the second says 'had stopped'. If it was the first then it's possible that they tried to stop it but if it's the second I don't see how the government could do that.

[Bluespunk]

This doesn't make sense. The first paragraph says 'tried to stop' the second says 'had stopped'. If it was the first then it's possible that they tried to stop it but if it's the second I don't see how the government could do that.

I personally don't see how this govt can do anything except wreck the rice industry, bully all those who oppose them, talk crap at international events, lie, cheat, steal and evade any consequences. They're are also fairly good at bringing out the fascist red guard to intimidate any in their way. I know that's quite a lot and I guess their defenders would point out, quite rightly, they did win the election, but what a mess it's been since then. I doubt they are capable of blocking an interview like this but wouldn't put it past them to try.

[daboyz1]

How can the govt. block an interview with Abhisit? Something missing here.

[waza]

This and Yinglucks rant in Mongolia just makes her look petty, desperate and willing to shed all credibility and self respect she has to keep her brother happy and her position secure. It seems the cartoonist comments were pretty accurate.

Edited May 10, 2013 by waza

[Insight]

Looks like a slip of the "Reply to All" button let the cat out the bag.

Guess we've all been there

/edit photo credit to @teamkorn

Edited May 10, 2013 by Insight

[bkkgriz]

The Shinawatra's don't seem to like the media. But then again, no dictator does, unless they can control all media outlets to serve their purpose and spew propoganda.

Edited May 10, 2013 by bkkgriz

[borisloosebrain]

A Vejjajiva blocks an interview with a Vejjajiva - family feud or sibling rivalry? Hmmm... a turncoat in the PTP camp - the mind boggles.

Suranand was quoted a few years back as saying that because he's Abhisits "older "cousin

Abhisit has to Kreng jai him..... I guess that makes Suranand worth his weight in gold to Yingluck. He can do what wants to his younger cousin without ever having to justify his actions or explain himself to his younger relative or anyone else for that matter.

Edited May 10, 2013 by borisloosebrain

[hellodolly]

A true blue Shinawatra through and through.

The big question is did her older brother tell her to stop it or is she just trying to impress him with a trick he would have used to keep the opposition from stating in their views. .

The short version of that is was she kissing his rear. If that is true how did she get to the head of the line, I guess here in Thailand who you know really is true.

[webfact]

POLITICS
PM's aide 'blocked' Abhisit interview - Democrat
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Democrat Party spokesperson Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said he had evidence to prove that the government - through PM Yingluck Shinawatra's aide Suranand Vejjajiva - had tried to stop USA Today from interviewing opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Chavanond said the evidence came in the form of e-mails exchanged between the newspaper and Abhisit, which clearly showed that Suranand had stopped the interview from taking place. Chavanond said he will be submitting the evidence to the Office of the Ombudsman demanding that it find out if Suranand had breached the Constitution's Article 46 paragraph 3.

The Democrat spokesman said USA Today first wrote to Abhisit on April 24 saying a group of people from the newspaper will be in Thailand from May 1-24 and wished to meet the Democrat leader on May 6, 7 or 9. Through his personal secretary Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, Abhisit said he could meet the group on May 7 or 9 at 10am. The newspaper then sent him a note of thanks, confirming the meeting on May 9, and sent details of members of the group.

Later, within an hour, Somkiat received an e-mail from one of the journalists saying: "The appointment is being immediately cancelled because [we or I] just spoke with Suranand who said the PM's Office Ministry will not support us if we go and meet with Abhisit."

About 15 minutes later, USA Today sent Somkiat an e-mail formally cancelling the interview.

Chavanond said he was not sure if Suranand was lying, or if the newspaper was making things up, but he wanted Suranand to clarify the matter. He said he would also personally write to USA Today to seek clarification.

If there are signs that media interference has taken place, then the government is breaching Article 46 of the Constitution, he said.


-- The Nation 2013-05-11

[dcutman]

Later, within an hour, Somkiat received an e-mail from one of the
journalists saying: "The appointment is being immediately cancelled
because [we or I] just spoke with Suranand who said the PM's Office
Ministry will not support us if we go and meet with Abhisit."

Did this USA Today reporter call Suranand and ask him if it is ok to interview Abhisit? Or does the PT have a spy in Abhisit's office?

[brd199]

If there are signs that media interference has taken place, then the government is breaching Article 46 of the Constitution

Article 46 excerpt:

...shall be deemed as willfully misuse of power

[brd199]

Later, within an hour, Somkiat received an e-mail from one of the

journalists saying: "The appointment is being immediately cancelled

because [we or I] just spoke with Suranand who said the PM's Office

Ministry will not support us if we go and meet with Abhisit."

Did this USA Today reporter call Suranand and ask him if it is ok to interview Abhisit? Or does the PT have a spy in Abhisit's office?

Perhaps the Shin government revived an old tactic of theirs:

Thai reporters say bugging press room violates free press

and word of the interview was discussed beforehand

[bigbamboo]

Later, within an hour, Somkiat received an e-mail from one of thejournalists saying: "The appointment is being immediately cancelledbecause [we or I] just spoke with Suranand who said the PM's OfficeMinistry will not support us if we go and meet with Abhisit." Did this USA Today reporter call Suranand and ask him if it is ok to interview Abhisit? Or does the PT have a spy in Abhisit's office?

Thailand's own Mata Hari perhaps !

[dcutman]

Later, within an hour, Somkiat received an e-mail from one of the

journalists saying: "The appointment is being immediately cancelled

because [we or I] just spoke with Suranand who said the PM's Office

Ministry will not support us if we go and meet with Abhisit."

Did this USA Today reporter call Suranand and ask him if it is ok to interview Abhisit? Or does the PT have a spy in Abhisit's office?

Perhaps the Shin government revived an old tactic of theirs:

Thai reporters say bugging press room violates free press

and word of the interview was discussed beforehand

That would not come as a big surprise with these criminals running this show.

[ianf]

So the only real evidence they have is emails.

Chavanond said the evidence came in the form of emails exchanged between the newspaper and Abhisit.

So Abhisit said it was stopped, or the newspaper said it was stopped. That is the evidence, give me a break.

Emails are used as evidence in courts of law, so give me a break, please!

[mca]

Chavanond said he was not sure if Suranand was lying

Lying about what? Has he issued a denial about anything?

[LomSak27]

How can the govt. block an interview with Abhisit? Something missing here.

hey the man has evidence .... that he will produce at a later date. Don't go away! You have to wonder if the US audience would know who Thaksin or Abhisit are? And how much time they would give, as this could cut down on; oh The Castro Brothers, Tsaranaevs, Jodi arias and the ongoing Benghazi GOP witch hunt. Thats a pretty full menu

[jayboy]

This story doesn't make any sense.US Today can interview anyone it likes in Thailand.If the PM's Office told the newspaper it would not offer co-operation if the newspaper spoke to the opposition, that would be very discreditable - but there is no evidence to show for this.

[whybother]

This story doesn't make any sense.US Today can interview anyone it likes in Thailand.If the PM's Office told the newspaper it would not offer co-operation if the newspaper spoke to the opposition, that would be very discreditable - but there is no evidence to show for this.

Maybe a threat of not having access to interview anyone in the government, or maybe even threats to make it difficult to be in Thailand, could make it hard to "interview anyone it likes".

[LomSak27]

Maybe a threat of not having access to interview anyone in the government, or maybe even threats to make it difficult to be in Thailand, could make it hard to "interview anyone it likes".

Or maybe they threatend to stop exportng Thai jasmine rice, durian or prawns, to the US, or maybe they didn't - Maybe they made the whole thing up and got a reporter to report it.

Lets wait and see

And in the meantime whats on HBO ?

[jayboy]

This story doesn't make any sense.US Today can interview anyone it likes in Thailand.If the PM's Office told the newspaper it would not offer co-operation if the newspaper spoke to the opposition, that would be very discreditable - but there is no evidence to show for this.

Maybe a threat of not having access to interview anyone in the government, or maybe even threats to make it difficult to be in Thailand, could make it hard to "interview anyone it likes".

If that's correct (which I doubt - it doesn't ring true at all) but hypothetically let's accept it - any decent newspaper would make a story out of it.So far nothing from US Today - just unsupported and lame tittle tattle from the zanier wing of the Democrats.Let's see if this can be properly documented and then there might be something to talk about.