Thailand's bogus Human Rights Report

[jayboy]

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.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

[OzMick]

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.

No coalitions are not quite simple, possibly why some US citizens have difficulty grasping the nuances. The party was disbanded for breaking electoral law. Its replacement was unable to gather sufficient support from the elected MPs, and they chose to form a different government, in exactly the same way any coalition is formed.

whether I am obsessed or not doesn't change how governments are formed, or your lack of understanding of the Westminster system. Obviously uneducated Thais might have trouble grasping this when being misinformed by paid propagandists, but as it has been explained many times here, I can only assume that you find the misinformation and your ignorance preferable.

[Robby nz]

The lady is quite right of course, the reds did provoke they did kill and incite violence.

I have said all along that Abhisit should have let the army loose as soon as the first grenade was launched, that was his big mistake, holding the army back.

The army went in for containment rather than attack and the reds had many chances to pack up and go home peacefully but they would not even when it became obvious they could not win.

They even agreed at one point to go home peacefully but changed, probably after a phone call.

And yes the brave leaders did use there own people as shields including woman and children.

Nothing bogus about that report just that it is not bias on the side of the reds and we cant have that.

The blame for the whole riots, death, injury and destruction must lie with those who instigated and funded the riots in an attempt to overthrow the Govt.

Not with those who were required by law to put down the insurrection.

To echo Yinglucks words "The law must be obeyed"

[OzMick]

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

How nice of you to not mention the armed insurrection against that legitimate government, the lies told about its legitimacy to those inculcated with a false sense of outrage, the murders and arson committed by them and in their name, and the lies told about the legitimacy of the government response to those crimes - all of which had major effects on the subsequent election.

The 'judicial intervention" you do mention was in response to videotaped electoral bribery in accordance with laws to prevent that, and a prevalent feature of the Thaksin government, laws which they chose to ignore at their peril.

But that's democracy Thai style for you. Inept criminals back in power, massive corruption and huge losses from the public purse.

[lungmi]

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.

******

Bangkok wasn't invaded by Dubai forces?

[klauskunkel]

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.

Well, you are right about the coup and subsequently the Abhisit Government...however, please don't forget that the Thaksin Government at the time was a so-called "Caretaker Government", having postponed elections numerous times and therefore their "Mandate of the People" had expired. I believe that Thaksin was on the way of making himself a permanent Prime Minister, not unlike his friend Hun Sen from Cambodia...

History is messy.

[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.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

Murky, but still democratically elected.

But, how do you get a mandate? Do you need the majority of people to vote for you? Or do you just need to get the majority of the MPs to vote for you?

[tingtongteesood]

I think calling it a 'brutal crackdown' is somewhat unfair. Let us not forget that the red shirts were firing mortars all over the place and were heavily armed and not afraid to use those weapons not to mention what they had done over the previous month. I say the so called 'crackdown' was no less than was warranted by the actions of these terrorists and it should have been stronger and happened at least 3 weeks earlier than it did. If it had been a peaceful protest that hadn't affected people much then ok, but to forcibly close the main business district and stop many thousands of normal people from carrying on their daily businesses not to mention a host of other actions the group took were just plain out and out WRONG !

[thhMan]

Whether its politics, a simple discussion or trade, Thai's have no etiquette, manners, sense of pride or common sense.

As a foreigner, tip toeing around them on subjects is the same as tip toeing around a soi dog sleeping in front of a 7-11

Their upbringing and education is what makes them dangerous, not their politics !

[Yooyung]

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.

Well, you are right about the coup and subsequently the Abhisit Government...however, please don't forget that the Thaksin Government at the time was a so-called "Caretaker Government", having postponed elections numerous times and therefore their "Mandate of the People" had expired. I believe that Thaksin was on the way of making himself a permanent Prime Minister, not unlike his friend Hun Sen from Cambodia...

History is messy.

That is an interesting point and one that cannot be overlooked. However let us not forget that the last election was deemed to be as fair as you can get. I dont remember anyone, the UN or even my Auntie Nelly complaining about vote fixing. YES there was money handed out for votes, it will happen again in the next election. The current govt may have been voted in by a load of country bumpkins but let us not forget that the majority of this country are country bumpkins. Its all very well hoping that everyone will wake up and see the real picture but that takes a real education system that teaches analytical thought etc to make that happen. If we were to say have a vote using some kind of direct democracy, via the internet, to get a real feel for the way Thais vote, then I would suggest that Phua Thai would win again. I may no like it, and you may not like it, but thats the way it is here. Abhisit LOST the election. I think a lot of people were taken in by his Eton educated demenour, he seemed so reasonable....but was he?

I dont know lads and lasses but Thailand needs to find its own path. A bunch of farangs arguing about it is like peeing in the wind. The best we can do is try to make others aware of what options are out there. OUr opinions WILL filter through, albiet slowly at a pace that the Thais are comfortable with. Remember our countries went through a lot of upheavil to become more fair. This process has unfortunately come full circle and I wouldnt say the Thais have much to look up to in the west anymore. Our freedoms are being taken away also, the powers that be are instilling fear into all of us as well, the gap between rich and poor is growing wider.

Its a messy one for sure

[Halion]

As I recall we had violent protests shutting down the central business district, crowds of protesters damaging property and burning tyres and errecting baracades . Armed civilains prowling around and in general total kaos in the Silom area. Plenty of notice was given to these people to disperse.

[Yooyung]

Plenty of violence in the streets to bring Iraq um.....democracy as well mate. It just depends on your point of view whether violence is justified.

This country will reach tipping point one day. That it hasnt happend yet is due to certain social control mechanisms and a healthy dose of strong arm tactics. When it does happen though it will be up to people like us internet warriors to decide just who the good and bad guys were.....

We're writing history here folks!

[kimamey]

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...

I think you'll find most red shirts are just normal people wanting a better life but it there are always those taking part who are there to get what they want through violence. It would certainly have been better if the peaceful ones had dispersed when the emergency laws came in and it was clear it was getting out of hand. I assume they were convinced to stay by those leading them who seem to have been promoting violence. There have also been suggestions that many were prevented from leaving.

The protests had been going on for a long time and were preventing residents and workers from going about their lawful business so it need to be ended which the emergency measures should have done but when that failed then something else needed to be done. Whether the methods the government used were the best I don't know but I doubt that the politicians did much else than based their decisions on the advice of the military commanders who probably aren't used to dealing with this type of situation. As it seems there were armed people amongst the red shirts which isn't surprising since weapons are often used in seemingly minor disputes then the military would probably need to used live rounds as well. Had the non violent protesters not been there then the armed ones could have been dealt with with less chance of bloodshed. This really amounts to attempting to use the unarmed protesters as a shield. I believe that water cannon were brought in but were attacked and wrecked but whether this has to do with the military not protecting them properly or not I don't know.

Much of what is said in this report seems to be fairly accurate when it focuses on the actions of the red shirts but it does seem to avoid criticism of the military and police. The police were the ones who should have dealt with the protests in the first instance and if they were more like a proper police force, properly trained and were lead by officers who were there because of their skill and experience rather than what appears to be connection and money things may well have not got out of hand. Much of what has come out of the inquests into the deaths seems to point to them being probably caused by soldiers who were not acting within their ROE which would mean that the worst the politicians could be accused of is not handling the situation well albeit with police and military that aren't really fit for that purpose. The blame for that lies with governments of all sides.

I does seem that this report is somewhat biased not so much in its view of the red shirts but more in its view of the military. The politicians may have been given a bit of an easy ride but it's more the lack of any apparent criticism of the military.

The deaths of unarmed protesters, journalists and bystanders are according to the inquest so far due not so much to orders given by the politicians but to the actions of soldiers acting beyond their ROE. I haven't seen anything about whether the individual soldiers were acting under orders from their military superiors.

The lack of investigation and action against the military is wrong but it can't be blamed solely on this report or the last government as the current administration is showing the same lack of oversight.

[gamini]

for those on this forum who claim that Abhisit was not democratically elected I wonder how long you have lived in Thailand.

Many governments here in the past were re-formed in an identical manner when a faction or partner in the ruling party leaves and joins the oppostion. It happens all over tthe world. Every democratically elected member of parliament had the right to select the new prime minister and they chose Abhisit. They did not do it as a group but one by one. It was televised on TV. The BJ faction, fed up with the government voted for Abhisit. So he became Prime Minister. The army had absolutely nothing to do with it. But Taksin did not like it and his supporters spread all the lies about the military being behind it and calling it undemocratic. Then stirring up the red shirts with further lies and giving them billions of baht to start protests.

It's a pity that some of you appear to have been duped by the Taksin/Red misinformation machine. But in a way it is not surprising considering all the billions he has spent trying to misinform the public for his own ends.

[bigbamboo]

Is a coup ever legal then?

More to the point.... is a coup ever justified? Many people in many countries around the world would argue that it is.

In the words of the American writer, Edward Abbey, "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against it's government."

[khunken]

The author of the original Op is Pavin Chachavalpongpun and he shoots the messenger by accusing one of the authors of being a Democrat supporter. I don't know khun Amara but I do know a bit about Dr Pavin.

He is a Thaksin supporter or, to put it another way, a Democrat party hater so it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Interesting too that a PTP spokesman condemns the report - see the other paper.

With this condemnation it is obvious that any report that actually touches on violence by the red/black shirts is not acceptable to the PTP & their supporters on this forum. Even criticism of the amnesty for DL by the UN is unacceptable. Of course the 'Truth' commission's findings are not acceptable to the same mob.

I wonder if expressing a 'like' of the THRC's report is illegal under the current thought police regime?

Edited August 12, 2013 by khunken

[Bkungbank]

Since some of your can speak Thai why not ask the locals during election did them received any bribe?, this cycle never ends

[jayboy]

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.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

Murky, but still democratically elected.

But, how do you get a mandate? Do you need the majority of people to vote for you? Or do you just need to get the majority of the MPs to vote for you?

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

[unanimosity]

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.

Because you and the army say so, it means that voters choices that don't conform to your wishes get overturned by force?

[khunken]

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.

Because you and the army say so, it means that voters choices that don't conform to your wishes get overturned by force?

Which is exactly what Thaksin's red shirts tried to do in 2010. They were even offered a way out (early general election) by the PM but those who were prepared to accept it were overruled by Thaksin.

Anyone who thinks that he is a democrat has a very shallow or totally ignorant knowledge of Mr T's one-man-plus-family rule.

[whybother]

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Yingluck obviously has some sort of mandate, since her party won a majority of seats, even though they didn't get a majority of the vote. But I wasn't comparing her to Abhisit.

The PPP didn't "win" the election, but were able to form a coalition government by getting Samak elected PM in parliament. When Samak was forced to step down, the PPP chose not to call an election, and went to parliament to elect a new PM where Somchai was elected PM. Later, after PPP were disbanded, PTP was in government and chose not to call an election. They lost the vote for PM in parliament, where Abhisit was elected and was able to form a coalition government.

"Winning" the election is about forming government. Abhisit won the election in parliament and was able to form government.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were no different to each other. Their parties didn't get a majority of seats and didn't get the majority of votes. But, what they all got was the majority of MPs to support them. That gave them all the same mandate.

[jayboy]

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Yingluck obviously has some sort of mandate, since her party won a majority of seats, even though they didn't get a majority of the vote. But I wasn't comparing her to Abhisit.

The PPP didn't "win" the election, but were able to form a coalition government by getting Samak elected PM in parliament. When Samak was forced to step down, the PPP chose not to call an election, and went to parliament to elect a new PM where Somchai was elected PM. Later, after PPP were disbanded, PTP was in government and chose not to call an election. They lost the vote for PM in parliament, where Abhisit was elected and was able to form a coalition government.

"Winning" the election is about forming government. Abhisit won the election in parliament and was able to form government.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were no different to each other. Their parties didn't get a majority of seats and didn't get the majority of votes. But, what they all got was the majority of MPs to support them. That gave them all the same mandate.

Cutting to the chase I agree.But once PM all three (Samak,Somchai and Abhisit) would need to consider recharging their personal mandate for reasons detailed in my earlier post.

[whybother]

Cutting to the chase I agree.But once PM all three (Samak,Somchai and Abhisit) would need to consider recharging their personal mandate for reasons detailed in my earlier post.

When governments are consistently made up of coalitions as they are in Thailand, I don't think it is feasible to go to an election whenever a new coalition is formed.

The facts are that a majority of elected MPs voted for these guys to be PM. The MPs are representatives of the people that elected them. Doesn't that give each elected PM a mandate?

[OzMick]

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Your concept of personal mandate is a personal construction to suit your own views, not supported by law or parliamentary procedure. That it it should trigger an election or otherwise diminish the legitimacy of a government is the stuff of fantasy, and does not reflect the realities of politics.

[inquisitive]

I think you'll find most red shirts are just normal people wanting a better life but it there are always those taking part who are there to get what they want through violence. It would certainly have been better if the peaceful ones had dispersed when the emergency laws came in and it was clear it was getting out of hand. I assume they were convinced to stay by those leading them who seem to have been promoting violence. There have also been suggestions that many were prevented from leaving. ...

I can confirm at least two such incidents. Some members of my extended family went on the all-expenses paid jaunt to Bangkok. It was down time in the fields anyway, and they had nothing more interesting or more profitable to do at the time. They were not idealistically motivated at all. (One had even been a paid participant at a yellow-short protest.) It was all abut the money, free food, a trip to the big city, and the camaraderie. They believed it was for a long weekend but possibly extending into two weeks.

Once on site, things started out pretty festive and fun, but after a while things took an ugly turn. They had to line up and present their ID cards each afternoon at a specified hour in order to get paid, and they would get their names checked off on a participant list. Word was out that no one could leave without permission.

After a couple of weeks, one of my relatives who was in her eighties said she was going home. She said she was no longer physically able to handle the thing and asked to be shown to a bus. The leader refused - I don't know who the person was, only that it was a male - and told the old lady that if she did not show up the next day her family back in Burirum would be killed. The old woman did not speak Thai, and so believed that she could not get any help from the locals. She tried to call for help of course, but her cell phone battery was dead and she did not know how to use a pay phone. She was, after all, an eighty-something Isaan rice farmer that had never gone to school and could neither rad nor write even in her native language - whih was NOT the language of Bangkok. It was two more days before she found someone in the group who lent her a mobile phone to call her nephew, who subsequently drove down to Bangkok and smuggled her out of the grasp of the Reds. (PS, nothing ever did happen to her family in Burirum. That was apparently a hollow threat.)

The other case I'll bring up here was also a relative. This fellow also was told that he had to show up every day in the afternoon (4PM?) to get his pay and get checked off the list as still being present. When he said it wasn't fun anymore and he wanted to get back to his family, he was told that if he left early he would be hunted down and murdered by the Reds. He was told in such a way that he believed them and stayed.

I don't bring this up to make either side seem right. I can't even verify that the incidents took place. I can only say that this is what I was told by two of the Red demonstrators at the time it happened.

Edited August 12, 2013 by inquisitive

[jayboy]

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Your concept of personal mandate is a personal construction to suit your own views, not supported by law or parliamentary procedure. That it it should trigger an election or otherwise diminish the legitimacy of a government is the stuff of fantasy, and does not reflect the realities of politics.

It's not reflected in law and statute because it's nothing to do with these.It's a question of political strategy, that is shoring up a PM's position who has not faced the electorate as a potential leader.It's not even controversial so don't get too worked up.It's a consideration that applied to Samak and Somchai as much as Abhisit.

[SamMunich]

Can we get the emotion out of this topic, please?

And we might also favour the content over the form, i.e. wether an election is acceptable or not is a formal question,- formal only! If there has been election rigging, should we still call that a perfectly legal election? And rigging happens not only in Africa or in Cambodia, it happens right here as well. When Taksin was enticing cadidates of other parties to join his party (TRT) in 2000, he sweetened that with an election 'expense account' of 30 to 50 million Baht for each candidate, who would switch. How to call that? So a democracy is not defined just by holding elections or not.

The military has been involved in politics in Thailand since even before 1932, like it or not. I personally am no friend of coups, but in Thailand the military is still strong enough to pull one off. And to be honest, even as somebody NOT in favour of the military, I was quite relieved, when I heard, that they busted Taksin. Too much was that guy collecting bribes left and right, and way too much did he suppress freedom of speech and information. Remember, anybody critizising him was being slapped with a multi-million litigation charge. Frankly, in my view the coup was replacing the bigger with a lesser evil, and I certainly would have prefered another way. Still let's remember, nearly all coups in Thailand are bloodless, which is an exception, internationally.

Now about the Red Siege of Bangkok. Many people upcountry were unhappy with the politics as they played out in Bangkok. But the major factor contributing to the 'March on Bangkok' was the organizational groundwork the leaders of the red shirts had laid since their defeat (?) the year before. And there was a substantial amount of money flowing to get the people go to Bangkok. It was even documented on YouTube, how people were paid to join. An aquaintance of mine was a guard at the Rachprasong area and he told me he was being paid something like 2,000 Baht a day (!) to take care of and command a group of about 20 people.

The red shirts were far better prepared and organized than the government and even the first line defense of the government, the police, were not to be relied on, as they were "tomatoes". And the military was hesitant to step in again so briefly after their last coup.

In the end it was military power, that broke through barricades, that were filled with petrol and some even with grenades. And it wasn't the military, that threatened to blow up a LPG tanker in the Din Daeng area. And it wasn't the military, that called for the government leaders to be killed and for the buildings to be torched. And the "guards" of the red shirts were attacking the military during their retreat, which gave the military an excuse to fire live ammo. Strange enough, AFAIK none of the "men in black" was killed or wounded, though they were trained for combat. They knew when to go into hiding, those brave spearheads of the red shirts.

So far, but not so good.

SamM.

[Robby nz]

I wondered from when I first read this report how it could be called bogus.

Bogus is when something is compiled by a false entity, this report is compiled by the authority that was set up to do the job so must be authentic.

There could be something lost in the translation, but then I note that the critics are all PT and red supporters so I doubt it.

As for " Strange enough, AFAIK none of the "men in black" was killed or wounded",

Logic and common sense would suggest that if any of the men in black had been killed then their weapons would have been passed on and their outer black garments removed so they then became innocent protesters mown down by he uncaring army.

It would seem very unlikely that should they have been injured they would have been taken to hospital complete with weapons and incriminating black clothes.

After all we were (and still are) being told they didn't exist even though they were clearly shown on tele at the time.

[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...

I think you'll find most red shirts are just normal people wanting a better life but it there are always those taking part who are there to get what they want through violence. It would certainly have been better if the peaceful ones had dispersed when the emergency laws came in and it was clear it was getting out of hand. I assume they were convinced to stay by those leading them who seem to have been promoting violence. There have also been suggestions that many were prevented from leaving.

The protests had been going on for a long time and were preventing residents and workers from going about their lawful business so it need to be ended which the emergency measures should have done but when that failed then something else needed to be done. Whether the methods the government used were the best I don't know but I doubt that the politicians did much else than based their decisions on the advice of the military commanders who probably aren't used to dealing with this type of situation. As it seems there were armed people amongst the red shirts which isn't surprising since weapons are often used in seemingly minor disputes then the military would probably need to used live rounds as well. Had the non violent protesters not been there then the armed ones could have been dealt with with less chance of bloodshed. This really amounts to attempting to use the unarmed protesters as a shield. I believe that water cannon were brought in but were attacked and wrecked but whether this has to do with the military not protecting them properly or not I don't know.

Much of what is said in this report seems to be fairly accurate when it focuses on the actions of the red shirts but it does seem to avoid criticism of the military and police. The police were the ones who should have dealt with the protests in the first instance and if they were more like a proper police force, properly trained and were lead by officers who were there because of their skill and experience rather than what appears to be connection and money things may well have not got out of hand. Much of what has come out of the inquests into the deaths seems to point to them being probably caused by soldiers who were not acting within their ROE which would mean that the worst the politicians could be accused of is not handling the situation well albeit with police and military that aren't really fit for that purpose. The blame for that lies with governments of all sides.

I does seem that this report is somewhat biased not so much in its view of the red shirts but more in its view of the military. The politicians may have been given a bit of an easy ride but it's more the lack of any apparent criticism of the military.

The deaths of unarmed protesters, journalists and bystanders are according to the inquest so far due not so much to orders given by the politicians but to the actions of soldiers acting beyond their ROE. I haven't seen anything about whether the individual soldiers were acting under orders from their military superiors.

The lack of investigation and action against the military is wrong but it can't be blamed solely on this report or the last government as the current administration is showing the same lack of oversight.

thank you

Edited August 12, 2013 by alant

[whybother]

It's not reflected in law and statute because it's nothing to do with these.It's a question of political strategy, that is shoring up a PM's position who has not faced the electorate as a potential leader.It's not even controversial so don't get too worked up.It's a consideration that applied to Samak and Somchai as much as Abhisit.

Wasn't Abhisit the Democrat's PM candidate in the 2007 election? Therefore, he faced the electorate as a potential leader, just as Samak did.

Maybe the reds should have protested against Somchai and he should have called an election, as he didn't face the electorate as a potential leader and didn't have the "mandate of the people".