Bringing Thaksin To Account

[younghusband]

The Economist's latest rant against the junta can be summarised in one little quote: "The army may have doomed Thailand". All the rest are doomsday scenarios, every internet poster can whip up a dozen of them in less than an hour.

Stay on the drug war, please. There are posters who consistently try to divert this thread.

Absolutely agree.Stay strictly on the topic, and if possible restrict your comments to Thaksin's personal involvement in the crimes.Do not mention the support given by the majority of the Thai people including the most influential in the land.Specifically do not mention how elite interests who have no concern for the underclass have politicised the debate.

Certainly don't pay any attention to the Economist just because it is probably the world's leading and most influential journal of record.How can it be if it thinks the current junta in Thailand is a corrupt and incompetent disgrace which has betrayed the Thai people? We know better don't we because outsiders don't understand Thailand do they.Let's all say it together... four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad..... while the metropolitan pigs of Thailand Farm gorge at the trough.

Stay on topic.... or you'll be sorry.

Edited August 27, 2007 by younghusband

[hammered]

Govt wants to destroy Thaksin with war-on-drug probe: lawyers

Deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's team of lawyers Sunday alleged that the government had the ulterior motive of politically destroying him in setting up a committee to investigate his war on drug policy that led to more than 2,500 deaths.

Prakiat Nasimma, Wichit Plangsrisakul and Nikom Chaokittisopon slammed the government for setting up an independent investigative committee to look into alleged systematic humanrights violations carried out by members of the Royal Thai Police in connection with the deaths during the war against drugs campaign initiated by Thaksin in 2003.

Prakiat said his team analysed the motivation and believed the government wanted to harass Thaksin for his drug policy.

"This policy during the Thaksin administration wiped out drugs and influential people related to it, including dirty money derived from the drug trade. I have unconfirmed report that drugs have returned to the northeastern region with the support of bureaucrats and powerful people. Society has to keep a watch on the rise of drug problems and how they use money from drug trade," he said.

Wichit said he felt the move to set up this panel is not justified. "I am worried the committee may mislead the public that the Thaksin administration must be held responsible for any damage," he said.

He questioned why this committee was established only six days before the public referendum on the constitution even though this government has been in power for more than a year. "Is this committee set up to allow the military-installed government to cling to power?" he posed.

Nikom urged the Election Commission to summon National Legislative Assembly member Chai-anan Samudavanija, a staunch critic of Thaksin, to give information about his statement that more than Bt30 billion is expected to be used in the next general election by politicians who want to be in power and whitewash themselves.

The lawyer also urged the government to stop the move to ratify treaties with foreign countries as it would be unconstitutional. Article 186 of the new Constitution says the Cabinet must inform the public to seek their opinion and announce to Parliament before any treaties can be ratified.

The lawyers said they are keeping a watch on the government move to sign up to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Convention Against Corruption.

The Nation

Interesting to note that an ex-PM deposed in a military coup and claiming to be a man of democracy would actively campaign against the signing of treaties that would increase the human rights protections afforded to Thai citizens and make it a lot harder for those committing them to hide in foreign countries. I thought Mr. Thaksin claimed he was innocent. I also would have though he would welcome the opportunity to clear his name in the ICC, which after all could not be influenced in any way by the Thai Junta. It certainly does not look like the actions of a man who believes he can win in a neutral court. Interesting indeed.

[Plus]

Specifically do not mention how elite interests who have no concern for the underclass have politicised the debate.

How? Show us a few examples how elite interests have politicised it? So far we have only a couple of human rights activists working with little government support.

It's actually Thaksin's lawyers who are making it into a political issue, and some posters crying wolf in complete unison.

[sriracha john]

Certainly don't pay any attention to the Economist

I disagree....by all means post the article more than the 6 times it's already been posted on thaivisa..... afterall, it's not been put into the Gardening Forum....

yet.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1500675

[hammered]

The Economist's latest rant against the junta can be summarised in one little quote: "The army may have doomed Thailand". All the rest are doomsday scenarios, every internet poster can whip up a dozen of them in less than an hour.

Stay on the drug war, please. There are posters who consistently try to divert this thread.

Absolutely agree.Stay strictly on the topic, and if possible restrict your comments to Thaksin's personal involvement in the crimes.Do not mention the support given by the majority of the Thai people including the most influential in the land.Specifically do not mention how elite interests who have no concern for the underclass have politicised the debate.

Certainly don't pay any attention to the Economist just because it is probably the world's leading and most influential journal of record.How can it be if it thinks the current junta in Thailand is a corrupt and incompetent disgrace which has betrayed the Thai people? We know better don't we because outsiders don't understand Thailand do they.Let's all say it together... four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad..... while the metropolitan pigs of Thailand Farm gorge at the trough.

Stay on topic.... or you'll be sorry.

Certainly the Economist is a noteworthy journal of record anywhere in the world and especially so in the pro-market, free trade anglo-saxon atlantic alliance. However, the Economist does attract criticism from the parts of Europe that employ a more state protected system where they argue that protection of the people should come before unbridalled free markets. No doubt the Economist while adding the caveat of not liking Thaksins war on drugs would like his government's free market policies and certainly anything that restricted this would be anathema. However, we should always bear in mind that journals such as the Economist do have an economic or political line they take. They are not neutral. Whether they are right or wrong about Thailand, I dont know but I guess we will live to see anyway. It in someways is sad that the debate over free markets versus state intervention that goes on in the EU does not happen in such a way in Thailand. There may actually be strong arguements for a more old European system in Thailand than a completely free market one, but I digress. In Thailand the debate is only between free markets (admittedly with a very few and someimes poorly implemented state schemes thrown in) or state intervention in the most literal meaning of tanks in the street. I feel we are a long way away from a proper debate on how free or how fettered a market should be in Thailand. It is not an either/or choice but one in which most countries just make a decision on how to weight it. The decision on how to liberalise/modernise and to what extent the Thai market is a huge issue and one that needs to be made soon. Linked to it are the trappings of a modern society such as social security, education, labour protection, democracy and universal free health care. As the country urbanises, and we are now told there are more people living in urban areas than rural ones, history itself tells us that all of these issues will become more burining ones, so it is probably a good time to resolve them now.

[jumnien]

Again Thaksin as CEO is ultimately responsible for all the actions taken and cannot claim orders where carried out at local levels without his knowledge..

Ultimately they are ALL accountable in varying degrees, with him the figurehead of the atrocities.

Small chance that anyone is ever going to court for those human rights violations. Problem is that it is not only Thaksin, but a whole lot of members of the burocracy, the armed forces and police as well, from high ranked to low ranked officers, including members of the present power clique.

The reason that so far nothing at all has been done regarding the human rights violations other than the disappearance of the lawyer should show you that human rights violations under Thaksin played no, or only a miniscule role in why the coup was done.

Great summation from last year pretty much sums it up.

[younghusband]

The Economist's latest rant against the junta can be summarised in one little quote: "The army may have doomed Thailand". All the rest are doomsday scenarios, every internet poster can whip up a dozen of them in less than an hour.

Stay on the drug war, please. There are posters who consistently try to divert this thread.

Absolutely agree.Stay strictly on the topic, and if possible restrict your comments to Thaksin's personal involvement in the crimes.Do not mention the support given by the majority of the Thai people including the most influential in the land.Specifically do not mention how elite interests who have no concern for the underclass have politicised the debate.

Certainly don't pay any attention to the Economist just because it is probably the world's leading and most influential journal of record.How can it be if it thinks the current junta in Thailand is a corrupt and incompetent disgrace which has betrayed the Thai people? We know better don't we because outsiders don't understand Thailand do they.Let's all say it together... four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad..... while the metropolitan pigs of Thailand Farm gorge at the trough.

Stay on topic.... or you'll be sorry.

Certainly the Economist is a noteworthy journal of record anywhere in the world and especially so in the pro-market, free trade anglo-saxon atlantic alliance. However, the Economist does attract criticism from the parts of Europe that employ a more state protected system where they argue that protection of the people should come before unbridalled free markets. No doubt the Economist while adding the caveat of not liking Thaksins war on drugs would like his government's free market policies and certainly anything that restricted this would be anathema. However, we should always bear in mind that journals such as the Economist do have an economic or political line they take. They are not neutral. Whether they are right or wrong about Thailand, I dont know but I guess we will live to see anyway. It in someways is sad that the debate over free markets versus state intervention that goes on in the EU does not happen in such a way in Thailand. There may actually be strong arguements for a more old European system in Thailand than a completely free market one, but I digress. In Thailand the debate is only between free markets (admittedly with a very few and someimes poorly implemented state schemes thrown in) or state intervention in the most literal meaning of tanks in the street. I feel we are a long way away from a proper debate on how free or how fettered a market should be in Thailand. It is not an either/or choice but one in which most countries just make a decision on how to weight it. The decision on how to liberalise/modernise and to what extent the Thai market is a huge issue and one that needs to be made soon. Linked to it are the trappings of a modern society such as social security, education, labour protection, democracy and universal free health care. As the country urbanises, and we are now told there are more people living in urban areas than rural ones, history itself tells us that all of these issues will become more burining ones, so it is probably a good time to resolve them now.

It's true that the Economist is attached to certain values some of which you mention but would also include the rule of law, good governance and adherence to democratic principles.I know its not what you are suggesting but its certainly not a simple minded neocon line.Where I do differ with you is that there is a succesful alternative European model which somehow balances state intervention and free markets.France, the principle advocate of this balance in the past, has reversed policy since the mixed economy approach had brought it to the verge of disaster.Of course there is always room for differences at the margin and each country has its own culture and context which needs to be taken into account.But by and large the Anglo-Saxon model (its a rather misleading shorthand but will have to do) is the proven one and the one followed by most successful economies in Asia.And of course the Anglo-Saxon model by no means excludes judicious state intervention from time to time.

I'm not sure the recent Economist article really impinges on this debate which I agree is an interesting one.The usual suspects rant and rave whenever the Economist touches on Thailand, but actually most international commentators say much the same thing.I recall a similar article in the FT recently by the always reliable Victor Mallet.The response of the junta lovers is usually to say (1) nobody understands Thailand overseas (2) Thailand shouldn't care what international opinion says anyway.I hold them in amused contempt not so much the dimmer bulbs but the ones who have a brain but whose thought processes are overwhelmed by prejudice.

Edited August 27, 2007 by younghusband

[younghusband]

Specifically do not mention how elite interests who have no concern for the underclass have politicised the debate.

How? Show us a few examples how elite interests have politicised it? So far we have only a couple of human rights activists working with little government support.

It's actually Thaksin's lawyers who are making it into a political issue, and some posters crying wolf in complete unison.

Oh it's Thaksin who has politicised the subject currently! I know Goebbels recommended the big lie always works best but sometimes the brazen cheek takes ones breath away

[Plus]

Prejudice is to think that the junta is bad bad bad without looking at the actual results.

>>>

If you find similar articles in Guardian, for example, then you could say "most international commentators". Economist and FT are apples from the same tree.

>>>

American model is a proven failure, the UK's social safety system is far closer to the rest of Europe than to the US, but yes, their ecnomy is more American than others.

[ColPyat]

Prejudice is to think that the junta is bad bad bad without looking at the actual results.

>>>

If you find similar articles in Guardian, for example, then you could say "most international commentators". Economist and FT are apples from the same tree.

>>>

American model is a proven failure, the UK's social safety system is far closer to the rest of Europe than to the US, but yes, their ecnomy is more American than others.

Yes, of course, and the "Asian" model is so successful - wide gaps between rich and poor, hardly no social security, caught up in archaic informal patron client relations leaving checks and balances weakened by definition - which make horrors such as the many human rights violations only possible in the first place. Blame Thaksin alone for the latest Human Rights violations, but by god, don't dismantle or question the system that enables such in the first place...

This was not the first one, and it won't be the last one.

[hammered]

The Economist's latest rant against the junta can be summarised in one little quote: "The army may have doomed Thailand". All the rest are doomsday scenarios, every internet poster can whip up a dozen of them in less than an hour.

Stay on the drug war, please. There are posters who consistently try to divert this thread.

Absolutely agree.Stay strictly on the topic, and if possible restrict your comments to Thaksin's personal involvement in the crimes.Do not mention the support given by the majority of the Thai people including the most influential in the land.Specifically do not mention how elite interests who have no concern for the underclass have politicised the debate.

Certainly don't pay any attention to the Economist just because it is probably the world's leading and most influential journal of record.How can it be if it thinks the current junta in Thailand is a corrupt and incompetent disgrace which has betrayed the Thai people? We know better don't we because outsiders don't understand Thailand do they.Let's all say it together... four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad..... while the metropolitan pigs of Thailand Farm gorge at the trough.

Stay on topic.... or you'll be sorry.

Certainly the Economist is a noteworthy journal of record anywhere in the world and especially so in the pro-market, free trade anglo-saxon atlantic alliance. However, the Economist does attract criticism from the parts of Europe that employ a more state protected system where they argue that protection of the people should come before unbridalled free markets. No doubt the Economist while adding the caveat of not liking Thaksins war on drugs would like his government's free market policies and certainly anything that restricted this would be anathema. However, we should always bear in mind that journals such as the Economist do have an economic or political line they take. They are not neutral. Whether they are right or wrong about Thailand, I dont know but I guess we will live to see anyway. It in someways is sad that the debate over free markets versus state intervention that goes on in the EU does not happen in such a way in Thailand. There may actually be strong arguements for a more old European system in Thailand than a completely free market one, but I digress. In Thailand the debate is only between free markets (admittedly with a very few and someimes poorly implemented state schemes thrown in) or state intervention in the most literal meaning of tanks in the street. I feel we are a long way away from a proper debate on how free or how fettered a market should be in Thailand. It is not an either/or choice but one in which most countries just make a decision on how to weight it. The decision on how to liberalise/modernise and to what extent the Thai market is a huge issue and one that needs to be made soon. Linked to it are the trappings of a modern society such as social security, education, labour protection, democracy and universal free health care. As the country urbanises, and we are now told there are more people living in urban areas than rural ones, history itself tells us that all of these issues will become more burining ones, so it is probably a good time to resolve them now.

It's true that the Economist is attached to certain values some of which you mention but would also include the rule of law, good governance and adherence to democratic principles.I know its not what you are suggesting but its certainly not a simple minded neocon line.Where I do differ with you is that there is a succesful alternative European model which somehow balances state intervention and free markets.France, the principle advocate of this balance in the past, has reversed policy since the mixed economy approach had brought it to the verge of disaster.Of course there is always room for differences at the margin and each country has its own culture and context which needs to be taken into account.But by and large the Anglo-Saxon model (its a rather misleading shorthand but will have to do) is the proven one and the one followed by most successful economies in Asia.And of course the Anglo-Saxon model by no means excludes judicious state intervention from time to time.

I'm not sure the recent Economist article really impinges on this debate which I agree is an interesting one.The usual suspects rant and rave whenever the Economist touches on Thailand, but actually most international commentators say much the same thing.I recall a similar article in the FT recently by the always reliable Victor Mallet.The response of the junta lovers is usually to say (1) nobody understands Thailand overseas (2) Thailand shouldn't care what international opinion says anyway.I hold them in amused contempt not so much the dimmer bulbs but the ones who have a brain but whose thought processes are overwhelmed by prejudice.

We are getting off topic but this is an interesting one so apologies but I will continue.

In fact the level of state intervention in the UK is vast by the US standards when comparing the antlantic allies even if not by a lot of European standards especially Scandinavia. Yes a lot of Asian economies have been styled on the more american way. It is noticeable that in most of them that the disparity between rich and poor is huge, but then again choosing as a model a country that has been described as an example of a rich country with a very poor distribution of wealth may well make a n arguement that there should be more intervention in Asian countries to reduce the rich-poor gap. While in countries including Thailand trickle down has seen a reduction in poverty, this has also occured at a time while the gap between rich and poor increases. That is people get out of poverty but still dont get any closer to the rich, or dont see the development that the would if things were "fairer". This brings us back to the criticism of GDP as a measure of development. High GDP may mostly distribute to a small group, which will not result in development for the poor.

Persoanlly I would like to see the debate in Thailand move on from pro-and anti-T stuff but that agenda is not set by me. In the upcoming election we are going to have proxy parties for both T and probably the Junta. That Thailand will have an election based on personalities and egomaniacal power games does not do much to instill faith that things will improve. Hopefully I am wrong on that especially when the country is facing huge economic, social and other changes in the next few years.

[ColPyat]

Persoanlly I would like to see the debate in Thailand move on from pro-and anti-T stuff but that agenda is not set by me.

At least here in this forum discussion we could try to move on from the rather simplistic and intellectually not very challenging pro/anti-Thaksin debate.

Especially in the Human Rights violations discussion this would be rather important. Some elementary aspects unfortunately cannot be discussed in public, but a few pages ago i have tried to make a few posts describing the prevalent informal system here that enabled these violations in the first place, and contributed hugely to what happened not only in the ones under TRT, but in the ones before, and in the ones that will happen in the future.

[Plus]

Yes, of course, and the "Asian" model is so successful

Who said anything about Asian model???

>>>

Human rights activist might be fighting a lost battle, but they are doing it nevertheless, and they are doing it NOW, not when "prevalent conditions that cannot be discussed" turn favourable to them.

For all his alleged faults Kraisak needs to be commended for his efforts.

[sriracha john]

Yes, of course, and the "Asian" model is so successful

Who said anything about Asian model???

>>>

Human rights activist might be fighting a lost battle, but they are doing it nevertheless, and they are doing it NOW, not when "prevalent conditions that cannot be discussed" turn favourable to them.

For all his alleged faults Kraisak needs to be commended for his efforts.

Agreed. He's accepted taking on a task that no one has been willing to accept for 4 years...

Edited August 27, 2007 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

Yes, of course, and the "Asian" model is so successful

Who said anything about Asian model???

>>>

Human rights activist might be fighting a lost battle, but they are doing it nevertheless, and they are doing it NOW, not when "prevalent conditions that cannot be discussed" turn favourable to them.

For all his alleged faults Kraisak needs to be commended for his efforts.

Many members of the National Human Rights commission have already made a big stink while the drugwar happened, mostly thanks to them the killings stopped already after three months. One of those - Khun Jaran - was a leader of the UDD, and is pressured by the NLA to step down as Human Rights commissioner.

It would have been nice if the generals and the now vocal Thaksin opponents such as Sondhi L. and Chamlong would not have supported the drug war including the murders at the time they have happened. And now, instead of just forming the obligatory "commitees" would get all what happened then into the open.

[hammered]

Persoanlly I would like to see the debate in Thailand move on from pro-and anti-T stuff but that agenda is not set by me.

At least here in this forum discussion we could try to move on from the rather simplistic and intellectually not very challenging pro/anti-Thaksin debate.

Especially in the Human Rights violations discussion this would be rather important. Some elementary aspects unfortunately cannot be discussed in public, but a few pages ago i have tried to make a few posts describing the prevalent informal system here that enabled these violations in the first place, and contributed hugely to what happened not only in the ones under TRT, but in the ones before, and in the ones that will happen in the future.

A tricky subject indeed. However, the fact that so many people are now talking about human rights must be good in the long term although I wouldnt expect any overnight changes.

[hammered]

Yes, of course, and the "Asian" model is so successful

Who said anything about Asian model???

>>>

Human rights activist might be fighting a lost battle, but they are doing it nevertheless, and they are doing it NOW, not when "prevalent conditions that cannot be discussed" turn favourable to them.

For all his alleged faults Kraisak needs to be commended for his efforts.

Indeed he does deserve commendation. It speaks volumes that he receives so little.

[ColPyat]

A tricky subject indeed. However, the fact that so many people are now talking about human rights must be good in the long term although I wouldnt expect any overnight changes.

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

Edited August 27, 2007 by ColPyat

[hammered]

A tricky subject indeed. However, the fact that so many people are now talking about human rights must be good in the long term although I wouldnt expect any overnight changes.

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

Worldwide there is nothing but hypocricy and a complete lack of evenhandedness in the application of human rights trials, investigations and allegations. While we quite rightly see Milosevic et al hauled before a court when will Rummy and Bush be put in the dock for the Fallujah massacre etc? Sad. Human Rights Watch have been criticised for turning a blind eye to the killings of Syrian guest workers in Lebanon. It is not just Thailand. It is also usually the case that worldwide certain specific cases come to prominence and get a lot of coverage while others do not. No society wants to blame itself or its system for what occurs but chooses to blame completely deviant and abberant behaviour of individauls or groups of individuals within the society, which is another reason why we get to see a lot of coverage of a specific event or set of events. This is also the only way that these things can go to trial. You cannot put a system on trial and equally a system is not a defence. Historically it is by the high profile cases against individuals that society can be seen to change itself. The message gets sent out that something is wrong and will not be tolerated.

In Thailand the main case at the moment for those who care will inevitably be the Thaksin one. It involved a lot of deaths under dubious circumstances. Worldwide the precedent shows that it is always the head of government that will inevitably be the one who will be seen as the ultimate one to put in the dock. Quite simply there isnt another case of this size, and using the logic of what has happened in other death squad cases worldwide Mr. Thaksin will be the main target. Taking local politics out of it a quick examination of what the human rights groups outside Thailand say sees it as the number one recent case in Thailand and Mr. Thaksin as the main man behind it. The sad reality is that a hel_l of a lot of the people here in Thailand dont really care. As I said before the best we can hope for is that now people are talking about human rights we may over a long period of time see some improvement.

[sriracha john]

By all means, Thakky, keep it in the top of the news... the more people hear about it, the better....

Thaksin files lawsuits against Jarun and Viroj

Deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra has filed separate lawsuits against Justice permanent secretary Jarun Pukditanakul and Viroj Laohaphan of the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) for defamation. Thaksin's lawyer Prachum Thongmee filed the cases with the Civil Court yesterday. In the two-billion-baht lawsuit against Jarun, the former PM accused Jarun of defaming him in interviews with the press about the deaths of more than 2,500 people who were killed during the war on drugs that was launched under his administration. Jarun's interviews on Nov 14 last year and Aug 3 this year were blamed for mounting opposition among the British public to Thaksin's acquisition of Manchester City Football Club, it said. The court will consider the lawsuit on Nov 12. Viroj is being sued for 1.5 billion baht for his handling of the Export-Import Bank's four-billion-baht loan to Burma to develop its telecoms sector. Thaksin accused Viroj of giving an interview on Aug 1 this year saying that the former PM, while in office, had ordered the bank to raise the loan amount from three billion baht as Burma had initially sought to four billion baht, in order to benefit Thaksin's family business, Shin Satellite Plc.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/28Aug2007_news06.php

[sriracha john]

Thaksin lawsuits Charan, Viroj

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday lodged separate civil defamation suits against two senior government figures who have linked him with conflicts of interest and human rights violations. A total of 3.5 Billion Baht in damages was sought.

The first suit was filed against Justice Ministry permanent-secretary Charan Phakdithanakul, demanding 2 Billion Baht in compensation for his public allegation that Thaksin was responsible for 2,596 drug-related murders in early 2003.

Thaksin's lawyers also filed another civil lawsuit accusing Assets Examination Committee (AEC) member Viroj Laohapan of libel and seeking 1.5 Billion Baht in compensation.

In his suit against Charan, Thaksin claimed Charan's various statements in many press interviews had misled Thai society and the world community into thinking that he had ordered the killings during his first term of service between 2001 and 2005.

"Everything the defendant has said is false, and is libel against the plaintiff in order to stain the plaintiff's public image in politics and business practice," the suit claims.

Thaksin has demanded 2 Billion Baht from Charan and 7.5 per cent of interest until the payment is made.

The Civil Court has accepted Thaksin's case (number 3879/BE2550) and set November 12 for a preliminary hearing.

In the other case yesterday, Thaksin's lawyer Sappawit Kongkanoi filed the suit in the Civil Court over media interviews given by Viroj, who heads the AEC subcommittee investigating alleged corruption in a 4-Billion Baht Exim Bank loan to Burma during the Thaksin administration.

The court accepted the case and scheduled November 27 to set dates for hearings.

Sappawit said in the writ that Viroj's interviews to the media on August 1 and 2 could make people misunderstand that the Exim Bank loan for the Burmese government to buy telecommunications equipment had yielded benefits of 596 Million Baht to Shin Satellite, a business owned by Thaksin's family at that time.

The contract was agreed between Exim Bank and the Burmese government. The Cabinet appointed a committee, which included the Exim Bank's manager, a Bank of Thailand deputy governor, directors of the Fiscal Policy Office and the Office of Industrial Economics, the head of the Department of Foreign Trade among others, to review the deal. Thaksin had no authority in the contract, the writ claimed. Moreover, Burma decided to do business with Shin Satellite without any intervention from Thaksin, it said.

- The Nation

[sriracha john]

Jarun will not sue Thaksin back

Justice permanent secretary Jarun Pukditanakul said Tuesday he not will sue ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra after Thaksin filed a two-billion-baht lawsuit against him for defamation. Jarun said he will not sue because he does not want to create trouble for officials in the Justice Ministry. He told the officials not to worry about Thaksin's lawsuit, adding that he is confident the court will give a fair judgement. On Monday, Mr Thaksin's lawyer Prachum Thongmee filed the case with the Civil Court, accusing Mr Jarun of defamning his client in interviews with the press about the deaths of more than 2,500 people who were killed during the war on drugs that was launched under his administration.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=121171

[Plus]

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

While some people excuse themselves under "fundamental discussions first" pretext, others, like Kraisak, fight for issues they believe in, no matter the odds.

On a lighter note - I guess the UK is also up for revolution as they don't particularly care about Thaksin's drug war abuses.

[ColPyat]

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

While some people excuse themselves under "fundamental discussions first" pretext, others, like Kraisak, fight for issues they believe in, no matter the odds.

On a lighter note - I guess the UK is also up for revolution as they don't particularly care about Thaksin's drug war abuses.

The problem with Kraisak is that he is rather tainted as well, personally, and because of his family. I haven't seen yet Kraisak making any statements distancing himself from both his father and grandfather, who have excelled in corruption and serious human rights violations. So, excuse me if i take his efforts with a grain of salt.

There is no "fundamental discussions first pretext" - fundamental matters have to be addressed at the same time. Thaksin has not singlehandedly ordered and performed the drugwar, he was one of the many wheels in the system which led to the murders. He was a major culprit, no doubt - but there were other major culprits as well.

Putting all the blame on Thaksin while conveniently avoiding all other contributing factors (by simplistic hogwash such as pointing out his ultimate responsibility) is a futile exercise, and ultimately leaves the system in place that has led so many times to such human rights violations in the past, and will lead to the ones in the future.

The investigations now are a sham. They are only pointed towards Thaksin (and a few cops), and purposely steered away from the more uncomfortable truths of this society. Do you read any article nowadays even mentioning the Dor Chor Dor who have played a major role in the drugwar murders? Why do you think that is so - it leads us to some matters that are better left alone.

Yes, put Thaksin away for the Human Rights violations (i still have my doubts that this is going to happen though...) - but it won't change a thing.

[thedude]

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

While some people excuse themselves under "fundamental discussions first" pretext, others, like Kraisak, fight for issues they believe in, no matter the odds.

On a lighter note - I guess the UK is also up for revolution as they don't particularly care about Thaksin's drug war abuses.

The problem with Kraisak is that he is rather tainted as well, personally, and because of his family. I haven't seen yet Kraisak making any statements distancing himself from both his father and grandfather, who have excelled in corruption and serious human rights violations. So, excuse me if i take his efforts with a grain of salt.

There is no "fundamental discussions first pretext" - fundamental matters have to be addressed at the same time. Thaksin has not singlehandedly ordered and performed the drugwar, he was one of the many wheels in the system which led to the murders. He was a major culprit, no doubt - but there were other major culprits as well.

Putting all the blame on Thaksin while conveniently avoiding all other contributing factors (by simplistic hogwash such as pointing out his ultimate responsibility) is a futile exercise, and ultimately leaves the system in place that has led so many times to such human rights violations in the past, and will lead to the ones in the future.

The investigations now are a sham. They are only pointed towards Thaksin (and a few cops), and purposely steered away from the more uncomfortable truths of this society. Do you read any article nowadays even mentioning the Dor Chor Dor who have played a major role in the drugwar murders? Why do you think that is so - it leads us to some matters that are better left alone.

Yes, put Thaksin away for the Human Rights violations (i still have my doubts that this is going to happen though...) - but it won't change a thing.

Colpyat, under the circumstances, what do you think should have been an acceptable and effective method of neutralising the drug problem? People forget what a scurge the drug problem was. I do not see thaksin as an evil man intentionally willing the murder of innocent people, and indeed i'm convinced that was not the case. on the contrary i appreciate his exhuberence in trying to solve the problem which could have easily entangled him in do-or-die situations. people knock each other off when the power/communication structure is challenged, i think that is at least partially responsible. are there thugs within the police? yes i most certainly think so. were they thaksin's thugs? i doubt it.

Too many people here do not understand that powerful generals, police thugs and mafia bosses continue to run and support the drug trade. They think there are no soldiers guarding the poppy fields! They think there are no millionaire generals this side of the burmese border. you can't possibly get rid of them by getting them arrested, who would dare to? there'd be a bullet in your head before an arrest warrant is issued.

It would have been so simple if western style legal process can be duely applied. do the foreigners here really think thais are so dumb and incapable of solving the drug problem if it were so simple as getting the culprits arrested? i think thaksin had real balls to declare a war on drugs, and also the war on "dark influences", the latter of which i fully expected him to be murdered for. i count these together with his outstanding handling of the tsunami aftermath as some of the high points of his term in office. it is sheer hypocrisy to be attacking him now when the majority actually applauded him for these actions before.

[marshbags]

No matter who commits H.R. Abuses here or indeed, anywhere in the world

Human decency demands that they are brought to international attention and while it is nice to see the offenders punished.

Even if they are not or let off lightly this doesn,t mean that they shouldn,t be investigated, are a waste of time ect. ect.

It is everyones duty as a caring member of humanity to do our best in stopping evil and trying to make sure it will never happen again.

The latter surely being the least we would want to achieve.

IMHO of course

Not a condescending post intended, just down to earth concern for all the victims around the globe and the evil they are subjected to.

We need to get rid of the foreigner interfering attitude / should mind there own business ect. as all H.R.A. are everybodies business, otherwise it would be anarcism and open season for all the evil B******* / dictators of the world.

marshbags

Edited August 28, 2007 by marshbags

[Tony Clifton]

Just as sad as the consequences of drug addiction, the whole drug war mess was just one more of those bright ideas that went on in a hurry without first thinking of a decent way to proceed and of the consequences, only to please Dear Leader on a dangerous ego trip, his own form of addiction, power. Anyone thinking that the police force could handle this problem was clearly out of his mind when you look at the actual state of the very same police force who by the way seem to think they are doing fine when faced with the possibility of a total reform. But then again, when a CEO himself says "The UN is not my father", he is reassuring those who take his orders not to worry and that that they've got the green light.

One of Thaksin's ministers who took a step back, forget his name, declared not long ago that what went on in meetings was mostly never recorded, I can only see two reasons for this, something to hide or all his cabinet members and entourage were chosen for their superhuman photographic and aural memory capabilities. This will make the investigation somehow more difficult but the media has plenty of incriminating material.

[hammered]

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

While some people excuse themselves under "fundamental discussions first" pretext, others, like Kraisak, fight for issues they believe in, no matter the odds.

On a lighter note - I guess the UK is also up for revolution as they don't particularly care about Thaksin's drug war abuses.

The problem with Kraisak is that he is rather tainted as well, personally, and because of his family. I haven't seen yet Kraisak making any statements distancing himself from both his father and grandfather, who have excelled in corruption and serious human rights violations. So, excuse me if i take his efforts with a grain of salt.

There is no "fundamental discussions first pretext" - fundamental matters have to be addressed at the same time. Thaksin has not singlehandedly ordered and performed the drugwar, he was one of the many wheels in the system which led to the murders. He was a major culprit, no doubt - but there were other major culprits as well.

Putting all the blame on Thaksin while conveniently avoiding all other contributing factors (by simplistic hogwash such as pointing out his ultimate responsibility) is a futile exercise, and ultimately leaves the system in place that has led so many times to such human rights violations in the past, and will lead to the ones in the future.

The investigations now are a sham. They are only pointed towards Thaksin (and a few cops), and purposely steered away from the more uncomfortable truths of this society. Do you read any article nowadays even mentioning the Dor Chor Dor who have played a major role in the drugwar murders? Why do you think that is so - it leads us to some matters that are better left alone.

Yes, put Thaksin away for the Human Rights violations (i still have my doubts that this is going to happen though...) - but it won't change a thing.

Colpyat, under the circumstances, what do you think should have been an acceptable and effective method of neutralising the drug problem? People forget what a scurge the drug problem was. I do not see thaksin as an evil man intentionally willing the murder of innocent people, and indeed i'm convinced that was not the case. on the contrary i appreciate his exhuberence in trying to solve the problem which could have easily entangled him in do-or-die situations. people knock each other off when the power/communication structure is challenged, i think that is at least partially responsible. are there thugs within the police? yes i most certainly think so. were they thaksin's thugs? i doubt it.

Too many people here do not understand that powerful generals, police thugs and mafia bosses continue to run and support the drug trade. They think there are no soldiers guarding the poppy fields! They think there are no millionaire generals this side of the burmese border. you can't possibly get rid of them by getting them arrested, who would dare to? there'd be a bullet in your head before an arrest warrant is issued.

It would have been so simple if western style legal process can be duely applied. do the foreigners here really think thais are so dumb and incapable of solving the drug problem if it were so simple as getting the culprits arrested? i think thaksin had real balls to declare a war on drugs, and also the war on "dark influences", the latter of which i fully expected him to be murdered for. i count these together with his outstanding handling of the tsunami aftermath as some of the high points of his term in office. it is sheer hypocrisy to be attacking him now when the majority actually applauded him for these actions before.

Thank you for informing us of your complete support and admiration of certain sets of human rights abuses in recent Thai history. Thank you for giving us this deep analysis of why due legal process should be totally ignored. It may not be what I or maybe even some others agree with or even find agreeable. However, it does enable me/us to see where the comments and arguements you make come from and what kind of views they are based on.

[blaze]

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

While some people excuse themselves under "fundamental discussions first" pretext, others, like Kraisak, fight for issues they believe in, no matter the odds.

On a lighter note - I guess the UK is also up for revolution as they don't particularly care about Thaksin's drug war abuses.

The problem with Kraisak is that he is rather tainted as well, personally, and because of his family. I haven't seen yet Kraisak making any statements distancing himself from both his father and grandfather, who have excelled in corruption and serious human rights violations. So, excuse me if i take his efforts with a grain of salt.

There is no "fundamental discussions first pretext" - fundamental matters have to be addressed at the same time. Thaksin has not singlehandedly ordered and performed the drugwar, he was one of the many wheels in the system which led to the murders. He was a major culprit, no doubt - but there were other major culprits as well.

Putting all the blame on Thaksin while conveniently avoiding all other contributing factors (by simplistic hogwash such as pointing out his ultimate responsibility) is a futile exercise, and ultimately leaves the system in place that has led so many times to such human rights violations in the past, and will lead to the ones in the future.

The investigations now are a sham. They are only pointed towards Thaksin (and a few cops), and purposely steered away from the more uncomfortable truths of this society. Do you read any article nowadays even mentioning the Dor Chor Dor who have played a major role in the drugwar murders? Why do you think that is so - it leads us to some matters that are better left alone.

Yes, put Thaksin away for the Human Rights violations (i still have my doubts that this is going to happen though...) - but it won't change a thing.

Colpyat, under the circumstances, what do you think should have been an acceptable and effective method of neutralising the drug problem? People forget what a scurge the drug problem was. I do not see thaksin as an evil man intentionally willing the murder of innocent people, and indeed i'm convinced that was not the case. on the contrary i appreciate his exhuberence in trying to solve the problem which could have easily entangled him in do-or-die situations. people knock each other off when the power/communication structure is challenged, i think that is at least partially responsible. are there thugs within the police? yes i most certainly think so. were they thaksin's thugs? i doubt it.

Too many people here do not understand that powerful generals, police thugs and mafia bosses continue to run and support the drug trade. They think there are no soldiers guarding the poppy fields! They think there are no millionaire generals this side of the burmese border. you can't possibly get rid of them by getting them arrested, who would dare to? there'd be a bullet in your head before an arrest warrant is issued.

It would have been so simple if western style legal process can be duely applied. do the foreigners here really think thais are so dumb and incapable of solving the drug problem if it were so simple as getting the culprits arrested? i think thaksin had real balls to declare a war on drugs, and also the war on "dark influences", the latter of which i fully expected him to be murdered for. i count these together with his outstanding handling of the tsunami aftermath as some of the high points of his term in office. it is sheer hypocrisy to be attacking him now when the majority actually applauded him for these actions before.

Thank you for informing us of your complete support and admiration of certain sets of human rights abuses in recent Thai history. Thank you for giving us this deep analysis of why due legal process should be totally ignored. It may not be what I or maybe even some others agree with or even find agreeable. However, it does enable me/us to see where the comments and arguements you make come from and what kind of views they are based on.

I think that the Dude's post is not important because it reflects how the Dude sizes up the situation: it is important- and maybe you were implying this Hammered- in that it portrays, accuratedly in my experience, the way that many Thais sized up the situation. And what is most scary- is that if confronted with the 'drugs-are-sinking-society' hysteria again- the population might quietly welcome another war on drugs that employs the same methods as the last.

Safe neighborhoods tends to be an issue the middle class (among others) hold dear- could a successful prosecution of Thaksin actually turn him into a martyr among those who have been his staunchest enemies in the last two years?

What are the Thai boards saying about this- the Thai papers? Is this garnering the same excitement as the housing project corruption- the airport scanner scandal- not to mention the Shin sale debacle?

Edited August 28, 2007 by blaze

[hammered]

The problem is that the issue of Human Rights is rather politicized here, and solely steered in the direction of Thaksin, instead of a fundamental discussion on what in the system enabled these violations countless times, and exposing the system as a whole.

Yes, small chance of quick changes.

While some people excuse themselves under "fundamental discussions first" pretext, others, like Kraisak, fight for issues they believe in, no matter the odds.

On a lighter note - I guess the UK is also up for revolution as they don't particularly care about Thaksin's drug war abuses.

The problem with Kraisak is that he is rather tainted as well, personally, and because of his family. I haven't seen yet Kraisak making any statements distancing himself from both his father and grandfather, who have excelled in corruption and serious human rights violations. So, excuse me if i take his efforts with a grain of salt.

There is no "fundamental discussions first pretext" - fundamental matters have to be addressed at the same time. Thaksin has not singlehandedly ordered and performed the drugwar, he was one of the many wheels in the system which led to the murders. He was a major culprit, no doubt - but there were other major culprits as well.

Putting all the blame on Thaksin while conveniently avoiding all other contributing factors (by simplistic hogwash such as pointing out his ultimate responsibility) is a futile exercise, and ultimately leaves the system in place that has led so many times to such human rights violations in the past, and will lead to the ones in the future.

The investigations now are a sham. They are only pointed towards Thaksin (and a few cops), and purposely steered away from the more uncomfortable truths of this society. Do you read any article nowadays even mentioning the Dor Chor Dor who have played a major role in the drugwar murders? Why do you think that is so - it leads us to some matters that are better left alone.

Yes, put Thaksin away for the Human Rights violations (i still have my doubts that this is going to happen though...) - but it won't change a thing.

Colpyat, under the circumstances, what do you think should have been an acceptable and effective method of neutralising the drug problem? People forget what a scurge the drug problem was. I do not see thaksin as an evil man intentionally willing the murder of innocent people, and indeed i'm convinced that was not the case. on the contrary i appreciate his exhuberence in trying to solve the problem which could have easily entangled him in do-or-die situations. people knock each other off when the power/communication structure is challenged, i think that is at least partially responsible. are there thugs within the police? yes i most certainly think so. were they thaksin's thugs? i doubt it.

Too many people here do not understand that powerful generals, police thugs and mafia bosses continue to run and support the drug trade. They think there are no soldiers guarding the poppy fields! They think there are no millionaire generals this side of the burmese border. you can't possibly get rid of them by getting them arrested, who would dare to? there'd be a bullet in your head before an arrest warrant is issued.

It would have been so simple if western style legal process can be duely applied. do the foreigners here really think thais are so dumb and incapable of solving the drug problem if it were so simple as getting the culprits arrested? i think thaksin had real balls to declare a war on drugs, and also the war on "dark influences", the latter of which i fully expected him to be murdered for. i count these together with his outstanding handling of the tsunami aftermath as some of the high points of his term in office. it is sheer hypocrisy to be attacking him now when the majority actually applauded him for these actions before.

Thank you for informing us of your complete support and admiration of certain sets of human rights abuses in recent Thai history. Thank you for giving us this deep analysis of why due legal process should be totally ignored. It may not be what I or maybe even some others agree with or even find agreeable. However, it does enable me/us to see where the comments and arguements you make come from and what kind of views they are based on.

I think that the Dude's post is not important because it reflects how the Dude sizes up the situation: it is important- and maybe you were implying this Hammered- in that it portrays, accuratedly in my experience, the way that many Thais sized up the situation. And what is most scary- is that if confronted with the 'drugs-are-sinking-society' hysteria again- the population might quietly welcome another war on drugs that employs the same methods as the last.

Safe neighborhoods tends to be an issue the middle class (among others) hold dear- could a successful prosecution of Thaksin actually turn him into a martyr among those who have been his staunchest enemies in the last two years?

What are the Thai boards saying about this- the Thai papers? Is this garnering the same excitement as the housing project corruption- the airport scanner scandal- not to mention the Shin sale debacle?

Indeed the post portrays a mindset that is commonly held, and it is not only held at times in Thailand or just about drugs. It is not a mindset I personally agree with. There are often cries from the streets for vigilante action, revenge or tougher action in many places where crimes are prevelant. When these come politiciains have to choose how to react. They can do it the democratic way by changing laws etc or they can just take the easy way out and say its popular to go outside the law so lets do it and the chances are there will never be accountability.

The chances are that if another Thai politician wanted to do it again in the future they would and could and get away with it because it is popular. The whole human rights issue is evry difficult to discuss in Thai society. Yesmany support what the ex-PM did while many now dont. It is hard to raise your head above the parapet on human rights issues in Thailand. It still remains extremely diffcult to openly discuss the events of 6 October 1976 although somewhat easier to discuss the October 1973 ones. There are many other cases, but until one or some are brought to trial or major leaders stand up and say they are wrong inevitably there will be support for other excesses. The question is when will the acceptance of death squad action and the tacit and overt support it gets be challenged?