Thailand's bogus Human Rights Report

[webfact]

Thailand's Bogus Human Rights Report
Written by Pavin Chachavalpongpun

A report on the tragic events of 2010 whitewashes the role of the military

BANGKOK: -- At long last, a report has been released that was compiled by Thailand's ill-fated Human Rights Commission, headed by academic-turned-Democrat supporter Amara Pongsapich. To no one's surprise, the report is far from being a fair assessment of the tragic incident in which the state security agencies launched brutal crackdowns on Red-Shirt protesters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship in May 2010.

After taking more than three years, the commission, as it appears in the report, creates its own myth about the crackdowns to justify the military's use of force against protesters. It is evident that Amara and her team attempted and failed badly to explain away the wrongdoings of the security forces.

Some of the commission's explanations of the tragic incident are beyond belief. In a televised broadcast last week in Bangkok, Amara claimed that the Red-Shirt protesters indeed provoked the government; and possibly that they deserved to be retaliated against in such a way.

Amara accused the Red-Shirt protesters of using hand-made weapons to fight with the government, exploiting women and children as their own shield. Thus, again, they deserved to be retaliated by the state. She continued to condemn the protesters for violating the state of emergency. Even when Amara confessed that she disagreed with the state of emergency, her commission did not come out to boycott it because, in her own words, "I was still confused at the time." [read more...]

Full story: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5629&Itemid=185

-- Asia Sentinel 2013-08-12

[webfact]

Human Rights Expert Slams NHRC's 2010 Crackdown Report

By Khaosod Online

BANGKOK: -- The representative of Human Rights Watch in Thailand criticised the National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) for displaying bias against the Redshirts and downplaying the heavy-handed tactics of the authorities in its report on 2010 political unrests.

The report claims that the decision of the government under then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to use military force against the protests organised by the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) was "appropriate" because the protesters have overstepped the extent of freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.

The protests started in mid-March 2010, and were ended in May 2010 when the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES), chaired by Mr. Abhisit, launched a military operation to dislodge the protesters who had been occupying financial districts of Bangkok.

Mr. Sunai Phasuk, the senior researcher for the Thailand′s chapter of the Human Right Watch, said that the NHRC should strive to be an independent organization, and should not present such a "biased" report against any party involved in the 2010 violence, particularly the UDD and its supporters.

Mr. Sunai believed that the NHRC report is flawed because its authors did not apply the same standard when they assessed the actions of the government and the Redshirts. Other critics and activists have voiced similar displeasure at the NHRC report, 92 pages long and based on interviews of around 180 individuals.

He pointed to the contents in the report, which stated that the many of the former government′s actions ‘will not be evaluated, due to the fact that they are yet to be determined by the court’, referring to the ongoing legal case against the authorities for their actions in the crackdown.

However, Mr. Sunai noted, the same report criticised many actions of the Redshirts even though they also involve details that remain under the deliberation of the court.

In Mr. Sunai′s opinion, the NHRC also failed to question the government′s use of force, particularly on the 10 April, when the military used live ammunition against the protesters during its failed attempt to crush the protesters, and on 13 May, when CRES again announced the extensive use of live ammunition as the military tightened its noose around the protesters′ encampments.

The use of live ammunition, in Mr. Sunai perspective, was bound to cause harm to uninvolved civilians and increase the risk that the military personnel would employ excessive violence. He wondered why the NHRC said not question the authorities′ decision in this matter. [read more...]

Full story: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM05qSXpOVGN4TWc9PQ==&sectionid=TURVd01BPT0=

-- KHAOSOD English 2013-08-12

[tominbkk]

Stop calling the the red shirts at that time protestors. They were insurgents who were coddled and allowed to commit crime after crime until the government was forced to step in and stop them. The red shirts invaded and destroyed private property. They should be happy not more was done to them. My sig pretty much says it all, as far as the mentality of the red shirts at that time.

[sms747]

Surely the reds were justified in fighting the results of an illegal coup?

[Bakseeda]

Surely the reds were justified in fighting the results of an illegal coup?

Can you please explain why you say it was an illegal coup. The military were , in my view, completely within the law to step in and stop a "caretaker" prime minister and his team of devils from completely plundering this country.. Unluckily for this country they are at it again and will not stop until there is nothing left to steal...So sad for Thailand.

[Scott]

If you simply want to rehash everything that has been done since the coup, your post will likely get deleted. Please read the OP and respond accordingly. Circular and nonsensical arguments have their limits.

[rametindallas]

After the debacle at Kok Wua intersection, where Col. Romklao was targeted for death and black shirts were brought in, armed with war weapons, to try to get the Army to overreact and kill many civilians, any ‘peaceful’ protestors should have realized that they were no longer part of a peaceful demonstration and dropped out to wait for another time and place to protest. Instead, they escalated their protest and moved to the most provocative place they could find; Ratchaprasong intersection. This was a coup attempt and in any Western country it would have been suppressed quickly with whatever force was required. I fault the Abhisit government for not initiating Martial Law as soon as the violence broke out. Soldiers should have cleared all areas of the city of protesters by morning after the violence of Kok Wua.

Edited August 12, 2013 by metisdead
Font

[tominbkk]

Surely the reds were justified in fighting the results of an illegal coup?

No, they were not.

[FarangTalk]

Posts calling for and supporting military coups show an almost complete ignorance of Thai history and politics.

Quite frightening they come from people with a so-called 'Western Education'.

Some of the commission's explanations of the tragic incident are beyond belief. In a televised broadcast last week in Bangkok, Amara claimed that the Red-Shirt protesters indeed provoked the government; and possibly that they deserved to be retaliated against in such a way.

Some posts here following the same agenda and unable to assess the situation without bias, much like Amara herself.

Of course it must be remembered that Amara only holds these positions because of who she is connected to in the Democrat Party, and that includes her post as Dean of Chulalongkorn University.

That she was not removed from her position on the NHRC by the Yingluck administration despite being politically biased towards the Democrats should be taken into consideration here too.

Edited August 12, 2013 by FarangTalk

[sms747]

Is a coup ever legal then?

[BrianCR]

I thought that I had heard it all before but, now we have posters who (I guess), really believe that military coups against elected governments are legal? Can someone please name me any countries which have A constitution that states that? Oh well, time to go back and watch the cartoon channel again I suppose that way I can get more knowledge. Have a nice day!

[Time Traveller]

Surely the reds were justified in fighting the results of an illegal coup?

Can you please explain why you say it was an illegal coup. The military were , in my view, completely within the law to step in and stop a "caretaker" prime minister and his team of devils from completely plundering this country.. Unluckily for this country they are at it again and will not stop until there is nothing left to steal...So sad for Thailand.

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

[GentlemanJim]

Posts calling for and supporting military coups show an almost complete ignorance of Thai history and politics.

Quite frightening they come from people with a so-called 'Western Education'.

Some of the commission's explanations of the tragic incident are beyond belief. In a televised broadcast last week in Bangkok, Amara claimed that the Red-Shirt protesters indeed provoked the government; and possibly that they deserved to be retaliated against in such a way.

Some posts here following the same agenda and unable to assess the situation without bias, much like Amara herself.

Of course it must be remembered that Amara only holds these positions because of who she is connected to in the Democrat Party, and that includes her post as Dean of Chulalongkorn University.

That she was not removed from her position on the NHRC by the Yingluck administration despite being politically biased towards the Democrats should be taken into consideration here too.

I find it even more frightening that someone with a so called 'Western Education' would support this bunch of thieving, robbing lying Dictators who desire to implement a feudal clan system of Governance as in Cambodia. If you read the full article in the OP it is a complete sham with phrases such as "shockingly Amara suggests that Red shirts burned down Central World"!! Just how much has the author of the article been paid to write that garbage?

[Roadman]

If you simply want to rehash everything that has been done since the coup, your post will likely get deleted. Please read the OP and respond accordingly. Circular and nonsensical arguments have their limits.

That would then see all the garbage posts in regard to a so called elected governemnt when it wasn't being ousted by a coup in 2006 being deleted. Only one that should be there is the logical one from Rami.... etc and Farang Talk addressing the issue, and edited to add the response from Gentleman Jim. The rest are just the normal Red tinted eye garbage.

PS this one is off topic to so should be deleted.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Roadman

[Jim walker]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

Edited August 12, 2013 by metisdead
Font.

[alant]

I am trying to decide if it is better to have such a little handle on Thai politics and society as I seem to do compared to the informed opinions I get to read here or if I need to read up on the subject. I don't' understand most of this. I read that the Red shirts invaded private property and I would condemn that, but I have chatted to some self professed red shirts in the local market and they seemed like normal people and they certainly were not armed and dangerous which in my mind is a pre requisite to be labelled an insurgent. I met one husband and wife, him a red shirt she a yellow shirt. They differed in their views, but neither came to blows in my presence even if, as I understand it the lady yellow shirt follower was advocating the abolition of democracy in Thailand in line with their beliefs which may not be a bad thing, this democracy thing seems to have its problems.

Meanwhile, I thought this was about the Human rights report and the allegation that it may or may not represent the whole picture...

Edited August 12, 2013 by alant

[whybother]

Surely the reds were justified in fighting the results of an illegal coup?

Which "illegal coup"? Why did it take them 4 years to start fighting it? And why did they happen to start immediately after Thaksin's billions were confiscated?

[GentlemanJim]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

In any civilised country the Police would not down tools and disappear. I take it you are aware that the police simply refused to do anything AND let vehicles full of weapons travel through 'road blocks' to Bangkok. They even allowed the reds to set up their own road blocks. But surely by making such an 'informed' comment you knew all this already. You are right, the army is paid to PROTECT this country from invading forces...what a pity in 2010 the invading was coming from within. Any Government has the right to use force to protect citizens, property and the Monarchy when life threatening force is used against them. Invasion of hospitals, calls to burn Bangkok and calls for the murder of soldiers...all on stage will go down as one of the most shameful periods in this countries history.

Edited August 12, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[whybother]

Is a coup ever legal then?

Successful coups are legal. Unsuccessful coups are not.

[whybother]

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

Check your Thai history. There was no elected government in power when the coup occurred in 2006.

What the red shirts tried to do in 2010 was force a democratically elected government to step down.

[whybother]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

What do they do in "civilised" countries when armed protesters set up fuel soaked barricades encircling a business/shopping district?

[IMA_FARANG]

The red shirts had armed men in the "protests" long before the final days.

I was working in Greece then, but I clearly remember watching at least two red shirts shown on foreign news coverage from Bangkok of a demonstration outside a government office (it may have been the ministry of foreign affairs, but I can't truthfully recall exactly where or when).

That however was at the beginning of the troubles, in the first few days of the "demonstrations".

One man there was shown on camera holding an automatic weapon ... looked like a version of a (maybe) Chinese made copy of an AK-47 to me.... and another man had an unidentified pistol with a plug in clip.

I am familiar with those weapons and their Chinese made copies from my time during the Vietnam war in the U.S. Army in Vietnam.

Both of them clearly had their weapons loaded with clips, and I assume, ammo loaded in the clips in their weapons.

They knew what they were doing.... and they were lucky that the police in front of those compounds they were trying to break into ... attempting to break down the gate.... were not told to open fire on those armed red shirt "protestors" right then and the

I would bet, if someone was willing to do a search and took the time they would probably still find archive footage on the net.

Edited August 12, 2013 by IMA_FARANG

[FarangTalk]

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

Check your Thai history. There was no elected government in power when the coup occurred in 2006.

What the red shirts tried to do in 2010 was force a democratically elected government to step down.

The Abhisit government was never democratically elected. It came to power as a result of the coup, and the following judicial coup.

Abhisit was elected by his peers after brokering a deal with one of the most corrupt factions previously allied to Thaksin.

When an election was called, the Democrats promptly were removed of stewardship by a mandate of the people.

The Democrat government was never democratically elected nor did it ever have a mandate from the people.

[OzMick]

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

Check your Thai history. There was no elected government in power when the coup occurred in 2006.

What the red shirts tried to do in 2010 was force a democratically elected government to step down.

The Abhisit government was never democratically elected. It came to power as a result of the coup, and the following judicial coup.

Abhisit was elected by his peers after brokering a deal with one of the most corrupt factions previously allied to Thaksin.

When an election was called, the Democrats promptly were removed of stewardship by a mandate of the people.

The Democrat government was never democratically elected nor did it ever have a mandate from the people.

So an alliance with Thaksin makes a government democratically elected, but when that alliance changes, the government formed is no longer democratically elected? Sufficient democratically elected MPs form a government, but not the government YOU want, so it loses all legitimacy - you've been listening to too much red propaganda.

Repeating casual lies do not make them any more believable.

[FarangTalk]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

What do they do in "civilised" countries when armed protesters set up fuel soaked barricades encircling a business/shopping district?

In a so-called 'civilised' country the airport takeover would never have been allowed nor many of the other actions of the yellow shirts, thus never setting the precedent for the red shirts to protest in such a manner after the coup.

Of course the divisive figures behind the yellow shirt movement and the coup, would not be in a position of such influence in a 'civilised' country, certainly not over the military and its actions, as the government of such a 'civilised' country, elected by the people, controls the armed forces.

[FarangTalk]

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

Check your Thai history. There was no elected government in power when the coup occurred in 2006.

What the red shirts tried to do in 2010 was force a democratically elected government to step down.

The Abhisit government was never democratically elected. It came to power as a result of the coup, and the following judicial coup.

Abhisit was elected by his peers after brokering a deal with one of the most corrupt factions previously allied to Thaksin.

When an election was called, the Democrats promptly were removed of stewardship by a mandate of the people.

The Democrat government was never democratically elected nor did it ever have a mandate from the people.

So an alliance with Thaksin makes a government democratically elected, but when that alliance changes, the government formed is no longer democratically elected? Sufficient democratically elected MPs form a government, but not the government YOU want, so it loses all legitimacy - you've been listening to too much red propaganda.

Repeating casual lies do not make them any more believable.

How can they be democratically elected when the government the people chose is removed by a coup and then the courts?

It's quite simple but you are obsessed with Thaksin so you're never going to allow yourself to come to terms with it.

[whybother]

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

Check your Thai history. There was no elected government in power when the coup occurred in 2006.

What the red shirts tried to do in 2010 was force a democratically elected government to step down.

The Abhisit government was never democratically elected. It came to power as a result of the coup, and the following judicial coup.

Abhisit was elected by his peers after brokering a deal with one of the most corrupt factions previously allied to Thaksin.

When an election was called, the Democrats promptly were removed of stewardship by a mandate of the people.

The Democrat government was never democratically elected nor did it ever have a mandate from the people.

"Abhisit was elected by his peers" = "was democratically elected". How do you think Yingluck was elected PM?

There was a coup. There was an election. The PPP brokered a deal with corrupt factions allied to Thaksin and formed a coalition government. The PPP were disbanded for vote fraud. The PTP (the remaining PPP MPs and newly elected PTP MPs from by-elections) were in government but needed to elect a new PM. They decided not to call an election and instead went to parliament (as the PPP did when they decided to replace Samak). The PTP miscalculated and Abhisit was elected PM.

[SOTIRIOS]

.....there were reports of red shirt protesters and black shirts actually being trained military....and better equipped than the military...

[whybother]

How can they be democratically elected when the government the people chose is removed by a coup and then the courts?

It's quite simple but you are obsessed with Thaksin so you're never going to allow yourself to come to terms with it.

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms government.

The MPs that were elected by the people elected Abhisit as PM and Abhisit formed government. That makes it a democratically elected government.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[whybother]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

What do they do in "civilised" countries when armed protesters set up fuel soaked barricades encircling a business/shopping district?

In a so-called 'civilised' country the airport takeover would never have been allowed nor many of the other actions of the yellow shirts, thus never setting the precedent for the red shirts to protest in such a manner after the coup.

Of course the divisive figures behind the yellow shirt movement and the coup, would not be in a position of such influence in a 'civilised' country, certainly not over the military and its actions, as the government of such a 'civilised' country, elected by the people, controls the armed forces.

The red shirts set the precedent a year earlier when they attacked Prem at his house.