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

[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".

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.

If they (supposedly) cancelled an interview with Abhisit because they were told to by someone in the government, why would they then report on it? Wouldn't they interview Abhisit and also report that the government told them not to?

[asiamaster]

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.

Such "ancient traditions" are seriously preventing this country's development...I would tell my older cousin to bugger off...

[tamvine]

In true democracy everyone has right to speak. Democracies in many countries specially in Asia are one family affair.

Two weeks ago Mr. Abhisit was not allowed to speak in Sisaket as well by some people.

In this case and topic what I can say is NO smoke without fire.

[EvilDrSomkid]

To be fair, there were many reports of media censorship and gagging during the Dems 2 year tenure.

This whole affair does smell a bit fishy. Several other foreign media companies have interviewed Abhisit.

The infamous BBC interview for one.

Could be that USA Today were informed that if they interviewed Abhisit, USA Today could become unwelcome in Thailand.

[whybother]

To be fair, there were many reports of media censorship and gagging during the Dems 2 year tenure.

This whole affair does smell a bit fishy. Several other foreign media companies have interviewed Abhisit.

The infamous BBC interview for one.

Could be that USA Today were informed that if they interviewed Abhisit, USA Today could become unwelcome in Thailand.

Were there any reports of international media being gagged during the Dems tenure?

[EvilDrSomkid]

To be fair, there were many reports of media censorship and gagging during the Dems 2 year tenure.

This whole affair does smell a bit fishy. Several other foreign media companies have interviewed Abhisit.

The infamous BBC interview for one.

Could be that USA Today were informed that if they interviewed Abhisit, USA Today could become unwelcome in Thailand.

Were there any reports of international media being gagged during the Dems tenure?

Don't remember.

[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.

If they (supposedly) cancelled an interview with Abhisit because they were told to by someone in the government, why would they then report on it? Wouldn't they interview Abhisit and also report that the government told them not to?

On your first point I have assumed US Today as a reputable newspaper would not accept such an instruction from the government (in the unlikely event such an instruction was issued).On your second point I agree that is what a decent newspaper would do in such hypothetical circumstances.

All in all a murky situation.Let's wait until some hard fascts emerge.But I agee somebody is going to come out of this badly.I'm just not certain whether it will be the government, the newspaper or the Democrat spokesperson.

[Traveling Sailor]

And they have the b***s to call this a democracy. Not even close!

[drdoom6996]

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

+1 You hit that nail right on the head.

[brd199]

Chavanond said he was not sure if Suranand was lying

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

Lying about whether the government would actually follow through on its threat to make things difficult for the news media outlet.

[indyuk]

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

Thailand has yet to reach the point where the right of 'Free Speach' is incorporated in the Constitution.

[Kay9]

Chavanond said he was not sure if Suranand was lying

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

Lying about whether the government would actually follow through on its threat to make things difficult for the news media outlet.

How can you definitively say Suranand has lied about

"whether the government would actually follow through on its threat to make things difficult for the news media outlet"

when

1) He hasn't presented the "evidence", i.e the e-mails to anyone, or named the USA Today journalist that spoke to him (something you'd have thought he would have done to remove any doubt about why he was accusing Suranand of lying

2) and then coming out with this statement

"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"

For a man who has "evidence" and has accused another person of lying, he doesn't seem too sure of himself does he?

[indyuk]

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.

As is often the case in Thai politics this is a spat between to members of the same family with oposing politcal views. I doubt that anyone would take a formal complaint in the matter seriously.

[Mosha]

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.

I'd bet their meetings are far and few between

[SOTIRIOS]

....Thai democracy.......

[brd199]

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

Lying about whether the government would actually follow through on its threat to make things difficult for the news media outlet.

How can you definitively say Suranand has lied about

It was not definitively saying, it was conjecture on what possibly the lying was about that Chavanond mentions.

1) He hasn't presented the "evidence", i.e the e-mails to anyone

He's displaying the evidence in post 14

What is unknown at this point is whether Suranand actually said what the USA Today wrote he said in their email. Also, whether the Suranand in the email is the Suranand that is Yingluck's aide.

Edited May 11, 2013 by brd199

[MrSlatersParrot]

What is clear is that the Democrat party are clearly "electorally disadvantaged."

Smear and innuendo are the currency here for the Dems.

I should have thought that the leader of the Democrat party, whilst being a murder suspect, can still talk to whomsoever he wishes.

He can even fly out of the country so to do.

It's a wonder (perhaps not) that he hasn't as yet tried to set the record straight.

I should look forward to his appearance on "HardTalk" on the BBC again but I fear it ain't going to happen.

To me it looks like just bluff.

Claiming you can't tell the truth, as you were impeded, so that's the end of the matter?

If it's true "Shout it from the rooftops!"

The "Great Truth" from the "electorally disadvantaged" Dems is, in their current form, they can never again be elected.

Having suffered monsterous electoral defeat the membership still re-elected their leadership.

It's clear the electorate were not considered and now look at them.

If there really is an "Elective dictatorship" it behoves the opposition to consider why that is and to adjust its own policies accordingly.

Not going to happen.

[Mosha]

I'd love to see one from the PTP go on hard talk v Stephen Sacker.

[bigbamboo]

Maybe the arrangement was very simple. Meet Abhisit and the one to one in depth interview at the Four Seasons scheduled with Yingluck will be with Yaowapa.

[Maestro]

From the OP:

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.

From Thailand's constitution:

Section 46. Officials or employees in a private sector undertaking newspaper, radio or television

broadcasting businesses or other mass media business shall enjoy their liberties to present news and

express their opinions under the constitutional restrictions without mandate of any government

agency, State agency, State enterprise or the owner of such businesses; provided that it is not contrary

to their professional ethics, and shall enjoy the right to form organisation with balancing mechanism

among professional organisations so as to protect rights, liberties and fairness.

Government officials, officials or employees of a government agency, State agency or State enterprise

engaging in the radio or television broadcasting business or other mass media business enjoy the same

liberties as those enjoyed by officials or employees under paragraph one.

Any act done by a person holding political position, State official or the owner of business with a view

to obstruct or interfere the presentation of news or an expression of opinions in public issue of the

person under paragraph one or paragraph two, irrespective of whether such act has been done directly

or indirectly, shall be deemed as wilfully misuse of power and take no effect except where such act

has been done through the enforcement of law or professional ethics.

[MrSlatersParrot]

From the OP:

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.

From Thailand's constitution:

>

Section 46. Officials or employees in a private sector undertaking newspaper, radio or television

broadcasting businesses or other mass media business shall enjoy their liberties to present news and

express their opinions under the constitutional restrictions without mandate of any government

agency, State agency, State enterprise or the owner of such businesses; provided that it is not contrary

to their professional ethics, and shall enjoy the right to form organisation with balancing mechanism

among professional organisations so as to protect rights, liberties and fairness.

Government officials, officials or employees of a government agency, State agency or State enterprise

engaging in the radio or television broadcasting business or other mass media business enjoy the same

liberties as those enjoyed by officials or employees under paragraph one.

Any act done by a person holding political position, State official or the owner of business with a view

to obstruct or interfere the presentation of news or an expression of opinions in public issue of the

person under paragraph one or paragraph two, irrespective of whether such act has been done directly

or indirectly, shall be deemed as wilfully misuse of power and take no effect except where such act

has been done through the enforcement of law or professional ethics.

You're having a laugh aren't you?

You quote the tennets of free speech from the constitution which don't apply when the opposition (redshirts) are deemed by Abhisit as "terrorists." with all their media closed down.

Despite which and their vilification by the then Abhisit government the people came out and gave his party a bloody nose.

Something sick about your view.

Somewhat lopsided methinks.

[Baerboxer]

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.

So you are accusing the US Today people of lying?

Read the OPs carefully. Do you think threatening that future PM's office support would be withdrawn if the interview with Abhisit goes ahead is intimidation and an attempt to stop the interview? Or is it normal behaviour in a supposed democracy.

PTP are developing the same traits as DL's government - complete intolerance towards critics and denying free speech to anyone other than themselves. Little sister's blatant attempts at using an international event to make a one-sided, historically incorrect, propoganda speech, followed my reactions to criticism are another.

There seems to be a genetic reaction when not everyone believes the lies, contradictions and propoganda, and then a general attempt to smother any contrary views being publicly aired.

[rubl]

Interesting to see a discussion on the 'peaceful protesters' in 2010, but the OP is about something com[letely different. It's about yet another Pheu Thai led government person who allegedly is protecting the democracy by blocking others.

[khunken]

^^

Work it out for yourself - it's off topic anyway.

[geriatrickid]

Interesting to see a discussion on the 'peaceful protesters' in 2010, but the OP is about something com[letely different. It's about yet another Pheu Thai led government person who allegedly is protecting the democracy by blocking others.

Sir, there is no evidence to support the allegation? All that you are going on is an allegation from the Democrat spokesman and unreleased emails between USA Today and Abhisit.

Don't you think emails from the government showing an intent to block would be an important component of this? So far, no emails in that regard.

And what of the USA Today? Why has it not made a statement supporting the Democrat position? Why has Abhisit not said anything?

More importantly, it is impossible for the Thai government to block Abhisit from talking with the news media. No US journalist is going to take no for an answer if he or she wants the interview. The interview would have happened if there had been an actual desire for USA to have one.

[philw]

Interesting to see a discussion on the 'peaceful protesters' in 2010, but the OP is about something com[letely different. It's about yet another Pheu Thai led government person who allegedly is protecting the democracy by blocking others.

Sir, there is no evidence to support the allegation? All that you are going on is an allegation from the Democrat spokesman and unreleased emails between USA Today and Abhisit.

Don't you think emails from the government showing an intent to block would be an important component of this? So far, no emails in that regard.

And what of the USA Today? Why has it not made a statement supporting the Democrat position? Why has Abhisit not said anything?

More importantly, it is impossible for the Thai government to block Abhisit from talking with the news media. No US journalist is going to take no for an answer if he or she wants the interview. The interview would have happened if there had been an actual desire for USA to have one.

Of course, no journalist worthy of the name, would allow a third party to dictate who and who they cannot interview.

Yet another storm in a ThaiVisa teacup.

It didn't happen the way presented.

[animatic]

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

Oh the PTP cousin certainly hates his more prominent Dem cousin.

To the point of writing Op-Ed pieces and everything short of obvious slander.

This latest takes the cake. Not sure if it is strictly this generation, but certainly

the mud is thicker than blood with this bunch.

[rubl]

Interesting to see a discussion on the 'peaceful protesters' in 2010, but the OP is about something com[letely different. It's about yet another Pheu Thai led government person who allegedly is protecting the democracy by blocking others.

Sir, there is no evidence to support the allegation? All that you are going on is an allegation from the Democrat spokesman and unreleased emails between USA Today and Abhisit.

Don't you think emails from the government showing an intent to block would be an important component of this? So far, no emails in that regard.

And what of the USA Today? Why has it not made a statement supporting the Democrat position? Why has Abhisit not said anything?

More importantly, it is impossible for the Thai government to block Abhisit from talking with the news media. No US journalist is going to take no for an answer if he or she wants the interview. The interview would have happened if there had been an actual desire for USA to have one.

Of course, no journalist worthy of the name, would allow a third party to dictate who and who they cannot interview.

Yet another storm in a ThaiVisa teacup.

It didn't happen the way presented.

My dear chaps, I'll reply to both of you in a single posts. I'm sure you don't mind.

1. Allegedly indeed. Mind you I had a similar discussion last year with a sadly departed member. About Thaksin allegedly interfering with the down South peace process with meetings in Malaysia. The non-denial "who am I to do such" was confirmed only a few months ago with "he did such". Unfortunately Thaksin's governments and the current one tend to have these "non-democratic" activities. Allegedly that is, till some one speaks out or a cable gets leaked. In English that something like "earning a reputation" if I remember correctly.

2. As for no decent journalists, no comment. Mind you, decent journalists have been sued for making unappreciated comments, foreign reporters denied entrance, etc., etc. Some may not speak out in their current function, like some reuters employees were not allowed to speak (too much) while working for the company.

3. All allegedly, like the cartoonist who allegedly defamed a PM. Like allegedly PM Yingluck learned a lesson. Like some posters allegedly still defend the undefendable, what ever that may be

[sonar6ca]

Why do they block the interview? Simple, those in the helm are afraid to hear how “well”,” properly”, and “intellectually” they are running this country.

[brd199]

He 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 would submit the evidence to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Good luck with that. The Yingluck government blows off anything it doesn't like to hear from the Office of the Ombudsman, such as the Office of the Ombudsman determining the issuance of Thaksin's new passport was illegal and insisting on its revocation.

Yingluck's gang has effectively castrated that supposedly independent organization into a meaningless entity.

Even if the Ombudsman determines Suranand's actions were illegal and insisted on his removal, nothing would happen.