HRW calls for pressure on the junta

[Lite Beer]

ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUP
HRW calls for pressure on the junta
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- HUMAN Rights Watch yesterday called on the foreign community to continue to pressure the Thai government of General Prayut Chan-o-cha to return democracy to the Kingdom.

It also expressed concern that the date for a new election continues to be pushed back.

"Governments around the world need to press the military junta to end repression and restore fundamental rights, which are essential for a genuine return to democratic civilian rule," said Brad Adams, HRW Asia director.

The call was made as the New York-based rights organisation released a report on the 12 months of the Kingdom being under the control of the National Council for Peace and Order and the military government since the May 22 coup last year.

HRW said repression in Thailand was deepening and the junta relied on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule.

"One year since the military coup, Thailand is a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man," Adams said.

"The date for elections continues to slide, with no certainty when they will happen. Backsliding on respect for basic rights and democratic reform seems to have no end in sight."

HRW claimed that the junta had used dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country.

"The ruling National Council for Peace and Order led by Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha has prosecuted critics of military rule, banned political activity, censored the media, and tried dissidents in unfair military courts," HRW stated.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/HRW-calls-for-pressure-on-the-junta-30260764.html

-- The Nation 2015-05-23

[sweatalot]

Why did we not hear from them when the corrupt criminals were in the governmernt?

[JAG]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

[Stradavarius37]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

Are you sure about that? Maybe you need to read more...

[gamini]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

No, they did a lot worse things

[Srikcir]

MIA

Article 2 of the 2007 and 1997 Constitutions: "Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government"

Hypocrisy

Article 2 of the NCPO Interim Charter: "Thailand is a democratic monarchy"

Back to the Future

Article 2 of the draft 2015 Constitution: ""Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government"

[lvr181]

Why did we not hear from them when the corrupt criminals were in the governmernt?

Because it was a democracy?

I'm not a great supporter of the current system but I am not a supporter of corrupt democracy as it had been in Thailand either! Unfortunately it seems many people support the latter.

I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Suffinator]

"Governments around the world need to press the military junta to end repression and restore fundamental rights, which are essential for a genuine return to democratic civilian rule," said Brad Adams, HRW Asia director.

Well there's now one group who have filed a lawsuit against Prayut for treason so that's a start. Why doesn't the UN step in and issue an ultimatum to either comply with international law and human rights or face expulsion from the UN?

"The date for elections continues to slide, with no certainty when they will happen. Backsliding on respect for basic rights and democratic reform seems to have no end in sight."

Does Mr Adams not get it or is he unwilling to simply state the truth ... Prayut doesn't care about democracy; he cares about ensuring the elite continue to rule with impunity and the last line of the OP aptly enforces such ... "The ruling National Council for Peace and Order led by Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha has prosecuted critics of military rule, banned political activity, censored the media, and tried dissidents in unfair military courts," HRW stated.

[seajae]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

or because those corrupt criminals were "generously" asking to them not to and are now doing the same thing to get them to cause trouble......

[Robby nz]

I wonder if they are also calling for pressure to be put on the military Govt of Egypt which overthrew an elected Govt and has now sentenced the president they overthrew to death in a military court ?

[sanuk711]

Jag--I am not trying to be impolite when I say you either not here at the time of the Taksin sanctioned killings---or you just lived in a vacuum . but to take your points in order---

1/ "Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"--JAG

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was repeatedly accused of using his political and economic power to silence dissenting voices and curbing freedom of speech stemming from his direct authority over state-owned TV stations coupled with his family owning the other broadcast TV channels

Criticisms of the Thai government range from the frequent use of libel suits against critics to coercion leading to self-censorship. Self-censorship has been used as an excuse for the central government or administrative branch to interfere in people's communications infrastructure. All radio and television stations in Thailand operate at the will of the government

The threat of libel suits has long been used to silence government critics.

The government of Thaksin Shinawatra filed numerous libel suits against government critics, in what the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called "Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's continued use of criminal defamation charges to silence media criticism of his government".^[Human Rights Watch's Asia Division, noted that "it's impossible to distinguish a libel suit from an attempt to silence the prime minister's critics.

Thailand's once-vigorous free press is being slowly squeezed to death

& also his sister in her short stay---In February 2007, Thai authorities, under a newly elected alleged "Thaksin nominee" government, cancelled a popular FM radio program hosted by Fatima Broadcasting because the show's host was a regular critic of the former premier.

2/ Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man--JAG

The power was so transparently held by Taksin----that it is surprising you listed this JAG. And it was done so simply-- Taksin changed the role of each Governor--(who was then beholding to him) before this the role of a Governor was just ceremonial (much like the mayor of London) under Taksin's change they held great power to order police set down new building rules (guess who they went to) and so many other powers this was why the 2nd act of the army taking power was to remove nearly every single Governor. ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

One of the most visible of Thaksin's administrative reforms was the restructuring of government department and ministries, labeled the "big bang."

Thaksin transformed the role of provincial governors to that of active policy managers. Historically, central government ministries operated in the provinces through field offices headed by senior officials who reported back to Bangkok, while the Interior Ministry appointed provincial governors whose role was largely ceremonial.

Governors were put in charge of planning and coordinating provincial development and became accountable for overall provincial affairs. Absolute power.The "CEO governors" were assisted by "provincial CFOs" from the Ministry of Finance who reported directly to each governor. Governors were authorized to raise funds by issuing bonds ^{----------------}After the coup, the junta reverted the role of governors.

3/ Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"---Jag

JAG, There where so many human rights violations under Taksin---as reported Human rights watch---please just Google, but in 2004 it got so bad that the USA issued its now famous statement--(because of the reaction). In February 2004, the U.S. State Department reported that Thailand’s human rights record had “worsened with regard to extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests for people not even connected with the drug trade. That month, Prime Minister Thaksin called the United States an “annoying friend” for its human rights report and ordered a new round of drug suppression, resulting in the arrest of 839 people in Bangkok in one day on February 27, 2004.

JAG a lot of these people gunned down were (small organizational) opponents of Taksin

In the first three months, the Human Rights Watch reports that 2,275 people were killed

The committee found that as many as 1400 of the 2500 killed had no link to drugs. However, while giving the opinion that orders to kill came from the top, the panel failed to establish sufficient evidence to charge Thaksin directly with the murders

Local officials appeared to use the blacklists to settle old scores.37 Once on the list, the only way off, according to -- human rights activist, was to “buy your way off the list, surrender at a police station or end up with a bullet in your head.” But even surrendering to the police offered no certainty. Many who went to the police to surrender or clear their names were shot by unidentified gunmen on the way home http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/thailand0704/4.htm

4/ Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"--Jag

Your right Jag-- a lot of dissidents weren't tried in courts ---they didn't make it that far---have you not read anything, under Taksin new law--police were allowed to shoot and kill people with no recourse .

or maybe if you wanted to speak out like some others...The assembly of around 3,000 people, unarmed and mostly young men, in the district of Tak Bai of Narathiwat Province, in the south of Thailand on October 25 ended with more than 85 people dead, 60 missing, and 1,300 detained. The detainees

They were transported to Pattani military camp, a travel of 120 kilometers from the protest site. Around midnight, after six hours being inside the truck, bound and on top of each other, 87 more people were found dead. Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Deputy said that 80% died of suffocation, and also convulsion, while others were crushed to death. In a statement that took 2 days to be released---The Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra confirmed this, but added "They were just exhausted, as they were protesting under a scorching sun." http://focusweb.org/node/529

These statements are not only downright dense, but totally atrocious.

The major cause of their death is the people's courage for standing up to this government for their rights. And this took toll in their lives.

-------------------------------------------

JAG I have lived under military rule in other countries--- & this has to be the most liberal one anyone would experience---do you think you would have just penned that letter you posted in Saudi Arabia where that guy got 100 lashes for so much less. We all want a return to a democracy, but with a level paying field ---your elections here with people being paid to be bussed in etc, were on par with Zimbabwe elections. & no party---whatever color could seem to alter the deep rooted corruption that Taksin set in

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

[tonbridgebrit]

Okay, okay, bearing in mind that most people on ThaiVisa are negative about Human Rights Watch, would it be a good idea if Thailand was to publicly declare that "HRW are talking nonsense, they are a bunch of hypocrites, they know nothing about Thailand, bunch of Left-wing puppets bent on being a nuisance to lots of countries" ?

Would it be good if Thailand was to say that ? Say it as it is ? Say it as what you think it is ? Is that a good idea ?

If people on ThaiVisa were in charge of Thailand, well, I think they would actually go ahead and do it !!

[ldiablo]

Part of the greatness of Thailand is that it is a corrupt country and I hope it always remains that way.

Edited May 23, 2015 by ldiablo

[Robby nz]

Okay, okay, bearing in mind that most people on ThaiVisa are negative about Human Rights Watch, would it be a good idea if Thailand was to publicly declare that "HRW are talking nonsense, they are a bunch of hypocrites, they know nothing about Thailand, bunch of Left-wing puppets bent on being a nuisance to lots of countries" ?

Would it be good if Thailand was to say that ? Say it as it is ? Say it as what you think it is ? Is that a good idea ?

If people on ThaiVisa were in charge of Thailand, well, I think they would actually go ahead and do it !!

.

Human Rights Watch should not only be critics but helpers. There are many ways to achieve a better result than just releasing a press statement calling for others to pressure a country.

In this case a country which is already under great pressure, a country if you like who started the boat problem by denying the traffickers the use of Thailand as a base, staging point and is now in the middle of the consequence of attempting to stop the trafficking.

Incidentally the only country which made a (belated) attempt to stop it, the spur for which is not really important at this stage.

Whether you agree of not it seems reasonable that caution is needed to ensure that any policy, like an open door does not lead to a flood of others taking advantage.

We are told that there are boats still to the north of Thailand loaded with people, should they hear that Thailand is taking all comers (Burma would be happy to tell them to get them out of their waters) don't you think they will head this way.

It is also obvious that many, possibly more than half of these people are economic migrants rather than refugees, although all have been taken advantage of by the human traffickers. As such why should they be given precedence over those from neighboring countries who come here legally to work ?

HRW has an important place in the world however there role should not only be exposing rights violations and criticizing but working to find solutions to the causes.

[EnglishJohn]

HRW refused to hold their annual report in Bangkok last year because they would have to get permission from the Junta and they would not acknowledge their legitimacy.

Since when did human rights groups take an active political stance ?.

Using 'Human Rights' as a banner for a politically biased organisation is unethical. These people should be ashamed of themselves - but considering they are on the red-shirt side, I'm quite certain they are not.

Their silence on any other issues is deafening. In any Western country, the press would have crucified them.

[ratcatcher]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

"Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all

power in the hands of one man?"" ------------>

[EnglishJohn]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

The worst thing I have ever seen in Thailand was when Thakins/Pheu-Thai used cold-blooded terrorism against their own people to try and scare aware protestors so they could cling on to power. Around 100 grenade attacks (a terrible weapon on crowds of people) on innocent, unarmed civilians including the murders of women and children. And not a single one of these terrorists was arrested, even when seen full-face on CCTV.

And before you deny it, if you think anyone in the UDD would undertake something like this without approval from the very top then you are deluded.

Not a single point in your list (even though your list is largely BS) even comes close.

Yet I don't recall a single comment from HRW. Disgusting.

[MockingJay]

HRW didn't care about all the atrocities carried out by Thaksin and his henchmen, because he was in bed with the US, now with yet another charmless unsypathetic leader at the helm who (in contrary to Thaksin) keeps his distance to the the yankees, all of a sudden HRW is all over the place, coincidence???

[waitforusalso]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

The worst thing I have ever seen in Thailand was when Thakins/Pheu-Thai used cold-blooded terrorism against their own people to try and scare aware protestors so they could cling on to power. Around 100 grenade attacks (a terrible weapon on crowds of people) on innocent, unarmed civilians including the murders of women and children. And not a single one of these terrorists was arrested, even when seen full-face on CCTV.

And before you deny it, if you think anyone in the UDD would undertake something like this without approval from the very top then you are deluded.

Not a single point in your list (even though your list is largely BS) even comes close.

Yet I don't recall a single comment from HRW. Disgusting.

You mean protesters like these guys @ Lak Si?

[daveAustin]

Democracy doesn't work in some countries.

[Basil B]

HRW should hang their heads in shame if they could ever think the previous corrupt so called system of democracy was fair and provided the basic of human rights for for most Thai's, even they should realise that some people need protecting from themselves, and basically Thai live for short time gains, the 500B note at the polling station...

[h90]

Why did we not hear from them when the corrupt criminals were in the governmernt?

Whos money I get whos song I think.....Maybe Prayut should hire Mr. Amsterdam as well....

[MobileContent]

HRW didn't care about all the atrocities carried out by Thaksin and his henchmen, because he was in bed with the US, now with yet another charmless unsypathetic leader at the helm who (in contrary to Thaksin) keeps his distance to the the yankees, all of a sudden HRW is all over the place, coincidence???

HRW condemned many times the Thaksin regime in the past for extra judicial killings, controlling the press so I don't really get your point.

[chainarong]

Regardless of the view on HRW , the pressure on the principal man is telling , this could lead to more stupid remarks and threats or more section 44s , HRW is correct in that the international community shouldn't drop the ball till a Elected Government is back in power , having said that the coup has served a purpose , that purpose was to put the Thai train back on the tracks , with a better constitution and government reforms , so long as the Thai people are happy with this outcome and the reforms haven't been deliberately modelled so that the people will reject the referendum, Thailand will perhaps get back to Democracy first half 2017, if not the consequences could be interesting.

[chainarong]

HRW didn't care about all the atrocities carried out by Thaksin and his henchmen, because he was in bed with the US, now with yet another charmless unsypathetic leader at the helm who (in contrary to Thaksin) keeps his distance to the the yankees, all of a sudden HRW is all over the place, coincidence???

HRW condemned many times the Thaksin regime in the past for extra judicial killings, controlling the press so I don't really get your point.

They certainly did, especially the supposed drugs suppression in the north.

[tonbridgebrit]

HRW refused to hold their annual report in Bangkok last year because they would have to get permission from the Junta and they would not acknowledge their legitimacy.

Since when did human rights groups take an active political stance ?.

Using 'Human Rights' as a banner for a politically biased organisation is unethical. These people should be ashamed of themselves - but considering they are on the red-shirt side, I'm quite certain they are not.

Their silence on any other issues is deafening. In any Western country, the press would have crucified them.

Okay, okay, so do you reckon that HRW should be banned from physically turning up in Thailand ? And the ban will be publicly declared ?

If you're going to impose a ban, why keep it a secret, surely, it will be publicly declared ?

[wowfactor10]

Why did we not hear from them when the corrupt criminals were in the governmernt?

Because they were elected !

[Robby nz]

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

The worst thing I have ever seen in Thailand was when Thakins/Pheu-Thai used cold-blooded terrorism against their own people to try and scare aware protestors so they could cling on to power. Around 100 grenade attacks (a terrible weapon on crowds of people) on innocent, unarmed civilians including the murders of women and children. And not a single one of these terrorists was arrested, even when seen full-face on CCTV.

And before you deny it, if you think anyone in the UDD would undertake something like this without approval from the very top then you are deluded.

Not a single point in your list (even though your list is largely BS) even comes close.

Yet I don't recall a single comment from HRW. Disgusting.

You mean protesters like these guys @ Lak Si?

No.

These were guards that the protest leaders were forced to hire to protect the people because the Govt and police would do nothing to stop the constant grenade and gunfire attacks on the protesters.

These are a small section of the protesters who did this country a great favor by protesting the amnesty bill, some of these people were teargassed, shot at and had grenades thrown at them while Chalerm who was supposed to be promoting peace and order had a canny knack of being able to predict a grenade attack, I wonder how he could have known something like that ?

[JAG]

Jag--I am not trying to be impolite when I say you either not here at the time of the Taksin sanctioned killings---or you just lived in a vacuum . but to take your points in order---

1/ "Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"--JAG

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was repeatedly accused of using his political and economic power to silence dissenting voices and curbing freedom of speech stemming from his direct authority over state-owned TV stations coupled with his family owning the other broadcast TV channels

Criticisms of the Thai government range from the frequent use of libel suits against critics to coercion leading to self-censorship. Self-censorship has been used as an excuse for the central government or administrative branch to interfere in people's communications infrastructure. All radio and television stations in Thailand operate at the will of the government

The threat of libel suits has long been used to silence government critics.

The government of Thaksin Shinawatra filed numerous libel suits against government critics, in what the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called "Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's continued use of criminal defamation charges to silence media criticism of his government".^[Human Rights Watch's Asia Division, noted that "it's impossible to distinguish a libel suit from an attempt to silence the prime minister's critics.

Thailand's once-vigorous free press is being slowly squeezed to death

& also his sister in her short stay---In February 2007, Thai authorities, under a newly elected alleged "Thaksin nominee" government, cancelled a popular FM radio program hosted by Fatima Broadcasting because the show's host was a regular critic of the former premier.

2/ Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man--JAG

The power was so transparently held by Taksin----that it is surprising you listed this JAG. And it was done so simply-- Taksin changed the role of each Governor--(who was then beholding to him) before this the role of a Governor was just ceremonial (much like the mayor of London) under Taksin's change they held great power to order police set down new building rules (guess who they went to) and so many other powers this was why the 2nd act of the army taking power was to remove nearly every single Governor. ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

One of the most visible of Thaksin's administrative reforms was the restructuring of government department and ministries, labeled the "big bang."

Thaksin transformed the role of provincial governors to that of active policy managers. Historically, central government ministries operated in the provinces through field offices headed by senior officials who reported back to Bangkok, while the Interior Ministry appointed provincial governors whose role was largely ceremonial.

Governors were put in charge of planning and coordinating provincial development and became accountable for overall provincial affairs. Absolute power.The "CEO governors" were assisted by "provincial CFOs" from the Ministry of Finance who reported directly to each governor. Governors were authorized to raise funds by issuing bonds ^{----------------}After the coup, the junta reverted the role of governors.

3/ Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"---Jag

JAG, There where so many human rights violations under Taksin---as reported Human rights watch---please just Google, but in 2004 it got so bad that the USA issued its now famous statement--(because of the reaction). In February 2004, the U.S. State Department reported that Thailand’s human rights record had “worsened with regard to extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests for people not even connected with the drug trade. That month, Prime Minister Thaksin called the United States an “annoying friend” for its human rights report and ordered a new round of drug suppression, resulting in the arrest of 839 people in Bangkok in one day on February 27, 2004.

JAG a lot of these people gunned down were (small organizational) opponents of Taksin

In the first three months, the Human Rights Watch reports that 2,275 people were killed

The committee found that as many as 1400 of the 2500 killed had no link to drugs. However, while giving the opinion that orders to kill came from the top, the panel failed to establish sufficient evidence to charge Thaksin directly with the murders

Local officials appeared to use the blacklists to settle old scores.37 Once on the list, the only way off, according to -- human rights activist, was to “buy your way off the list, surrender at a police station or end up with a bullet in your head.” But even surrendering to the police offered no certainty. Many who went to the police to surrender or clear their names were shot by unidentified gunmen on the way home http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/thailand0704/4.htm

4/ Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"--Jag

Your right Jag-- a lot of dissidents weren't tried in courts ---they didn't make it that far---have you not read anything, under Taksin new law--police were allowed to shoot and kill people with no recourse .

or maybe if you wanted to speak out like some others...The assembly of around 3,000 people, unarmed and mostly young men, in the district of Tak Bai of Narathiwat Province, in the south of Thailand on October 25 ended with more than 85 people dead, 60 missing, and 1,300 detained. The detainees

They were transported to Pattani military camp, a travel of 120 kilometers from the protest site. Around midnight, after six hours being inside the truck, bound and on top of each other, 87 more people were found dead. Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Deputy said that 80% died of suffocation, and also convulsion, while others were crushed to death. In a statement that took 2 days to be released---The Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra confirmed this, but added "They were just exhausted, as they were protesting under a scorching sun." http://focusweb.org/node/529

These statements are not only downright dense, but totally atrocious.

The major cause of their death is the people's courage for standing up to this government for their rights. And this took toll in their lives.

-------------------------------------------

JAG I have lived under military rule in other countries--- & this has to be the most liberal one anyone would experience---do you think you would have just penned that letter you posted in Saudi Arabia where that guy got 100 lashes for so much less. We all want a return to a democracy, but with a level paying field ---your elections here with people being paid to be bussed in etc, were on par with Zimbabwe elections. & no party---whatever color could seem to alter the deep rooted corruption that Taksin set in

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "rely on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "run a political dictatorship with all power in the hands of one man?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "employ dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country?"

Possibly because the "corrupt criminals" as you refer to them didn't "try dissidents in unfair military courts,?"

You have made a thorough and considered response to my post, which was in itself a response to " Sweatalots" one-liner.

I was here for significant periods during the tenure of all three of the "Thaksin Regimes", before and after he went into exile. I now live here. I follow events with interest, and most certainly do not live in a bubble.

I accept that Thaksin is far from being a paragon of virtue. I acknowledge that he was criticized on several occasions by Human Rights Watch.The use of the libel laws to attempt to censor critics is a very unsavory aspect of Thai political life, albeit one which it is worth noting was not confined to the Thaksin governments. His reaction to the Tak Bai deaths was banal and deeply offensive, although the deaths were the result of mistreatment of the detainees by the army, and not a result of direct instructions from him. I do not agree with the extra judicial killings which resulted from the "war on drugs". There should be a full independent inquiry into that. Not something sadly that is possible in the present or foreseeable political climate in this country.

The fact remains that all three of the "Thaksin Governments" (his own, the one which followed the 2006 coup, and Yinglucks government) were the result of his party, in various incarnations, repeatedly winning elections .All three were removed without the consent of the electorate; in two cases directly by the military, and in both those cases whilst they were in the process of offering themselves for re-election in a wholly constitutional manner.

The present regime has not only seized power and appointed itself to govern, but is, as Human Rights Watch points out; relying on censorship and arrests to resist a return to democratic rule, running a political dictatorship with all power effectively in the hands of one man, employing dictatorial power systematically to repress human rights throughout the country and trying dissidents in unfair military courts. Thai Democracy, which empowered Thaksin, was flawed, but non the less far preferable to military rule. Libel prosecutions to attempt to silence critics are one thing, arbitrary detention for "attitude adjustment" at the whim of the military, with no independent judicial oversight, are a totally different matter.

As far as living in countries under military rule is concerned you have the advantage over me. This is the only experience I have of such government. Relatively liberal it may be, such liberalism will evaporate rapidly when ( and it will ) significant opposition emerges. I fear that when that happens the excesses of the Thaksin regimes will pale into insignificance.

Edited May 23, 2015 by JAG

[JAG]

If I may add - as far as the elections are concerned, vote buying has been effectively discredited as a major factor in Thaksins electoral success, and do you have any substantive evidence of large scale "bussing in" of voters? It is certainly not something i have heard mentioned before.

On the subject of corruption, well the leading accuser of Thaksin, one Suthep Thaugsuban is widely regarded as having set the standard for political corruption, and the institution which is currently governing the country is arguably the most corrupt institution in the country!