Bringing Thaksin To Account

[sriracha john]

Yes, I agree, Plus. It's interesting how it comes down to the basics. Post 4 of this 241 post thread:

It's a long overdue step in the absolutely right direction to examine one of the worst human rights violations in Thailand's history and committed at Thaksin's direction. Thailand, under Thaksin, never responded to the United Nations inquiry mentioned in the article and even worse, Thaksin never responded to the Thai people, those who were brave enough to ask anyway, these same questions.

May the souls of all those murdered find peace and justice.

[ColPyat]

Mechanics of the drug war are well known, have been done to death, documented and archived. I dount anyone can add anything substantial to it and I don't think it needs any further elaboration in this thread. It just takes away the focus. But maybe it's the purpose of some posters here.

If these mechanics would be that well known, then you would not find outlandish theories being spread repeatedly, here as well, such as: 'It was only Thaksin', or 'Thai people did only support it because of fear', or 'nothing wrong with killing the guilty ones', or 'most who were killed were not drug dealers', or 'the drugwar did not reduce the amount of drugs'.

No, the mechanics have not even been touched at. It is avoided by you, and many others here, and Thai society as well to accept essential contributing factors that would lead to question the whole system of very recent ideological based Thainess.

What you may understand under the "focus" is something that i get increasingly bewildered by, and attempting to limit the discussion to your narrow "focus" by accusing me of ulterior motives is the sort of censorship and brain control generally associated by the system you seem to despise and accuse me of being blinded by - Practised Communism.

By i guess the irony there escapes you.

And you are rather negating the importance of the drugwar issue by stating that:

You can't run until you learn to walk. At the moment Thais are not very concerned about lives of innocent victims, forget about rights of real drug dealers. It's ages away in societal and political development.

Excuse me - but the problem exactly is that Thais are not that aware of issues such as human rights and due legal process. I though that was besides 'corruption' the two most important reasons for the coup, and not, what you state:

the government is too busy with other, more pressing matters

What, in your opinion are the the more "pressing matters"?

[Siripon]

The mechanics under Thaksin's regime were as follows:

As an ex-cop himself, the police could do no wrong. Relatives, peers in the police force and subordinates were unfairly promoted.

There would be no investigation of abuses of power as he had control of both Parliament, where no opposition to his policies was ever tolerated from either his MPs or house committees which were stacked with his minions;or from independent organisations where his lackeys were selected by the Senate, itself under his financial influence.

Any bureaucratsthat showed opposition were removed or threatened with transfers.

Result- a complete malfunction of the check and balances so carefully built into the last constitution. The writers of which just didn't forsee such a vandal.

No accountability.

So the killings happened with impunity.

Now the colonel can talk about the communist killings of the 1970s, the helicopter strafings by the trio of tyrants in 1973, the killings by the right wing in 1976 and 1992; all evil events and a blot on the Thai pysche, but these events differ to what Thaksin did as only the first was a prolonged , thought -out campaign like the drug war, but unlike then Thaksin operated under the most democratic constitution Thais had ever had and he rode roughshod over it in spite of his overwhelming majority in Parliament and control of the police.

There was no need to indulge in extra -judicial killings. He did it purely for the popular vote and for family reasons.

I cannot imagine any other modern Thai PM permitting such killings.

History

[Plus]

Writing a constitution? Dealing with "undercurrents", floods, the South? Thanks god they gave green light to any investigations and possible prosecution.

General issue of awareness of human rights and legal processes was NOT a reason for the coup.

-corruption

-undermining independent institutions

-dividing the society

-lese majeste

Those are four declared reasons. Drug war isn't one of them. I don't know how you can expect the government to start a nationwide soul searcing reconciliation campaign when it's besieged by critics on all sides.

"And I want a toilet seat made of gold, but it isn't on the cards now, is it?"

attempting to limit the discussion to your narrow "focus"

That's the topic thread - Bringing Thaksin to account.

Yes, some claims here are "outrageous" by your standards. The war was almost four years ago, not every TV poster knows about it in detail.

A couple of weeks ago Chownah questioned the very existence of human right violations, drug lists, officials involvment and so on. That was a good chance to explain "mechanics" in detail and educate some new posters, but you were nowhere to be seen and younghusband was making sarcastic comments. Why do you try to stall THIS thread with your desire to talk mechanics?

to question the whole system of very recent ideological based Thainess.

So first it was mechanics of the drug war, ideological based Thainess next. There's no way this thread can accomodate your appetite.

What kind of revolution are you planning for "the whole system"? Not a communist one?

[Tony Clifton]

The mechanics under Thaksin's regime were as follows:

As an ex-cop himself, the police could do no wrong. Relatives, peers in the police force and subordinates were unfairly promoted.

There would be no investigation of abuses of power as he had control of both Parliament, where no opposition to his policies was ever tolerated from either his MPs or house committees which were stacked with his minions;or from independent organisations where his lackeys were selected by the Senate, itself under his financial influence.

Any bureaucratsthat showed opposition were removed or threatened with transfers.

Result- a complete malfunction of the check and balances so carefully built into the last constitution. The writers of which just didn't forsee such a vandal.

No accountability.

So the killings happened with impunity.

Now the colonel can talk about the communist killings of the 1970s, the helicopter strafings by the trio of tyrants in 1973, the killings by the right wing in 1976 and 1992; all evil events and a blot on the Thai pysche, but these events differ to what Thaksin did as only the first was a prolonged , thought -out campaign like the drug war, but unlike then Thaksin operated under the most democratic constitution Thais had ever had and he rode roughshod over it in spite of his overwhelming majority in Parliament and control of the police.

There was no need to indulge in extra -judicial killings. He did it purely for the popular vote and for family reasons.

I cannot imagine any other modern Thai PM permitting such killings.

History

[ColPyat]

He did it purely for the popular vote and for family reasons.

History

That is a point i do strongly disagree with.

He did it because the drug situation was indeed out of hand before the drugwar. Some here may have been sitting in ivory towers, but reality is that the spread of drugs and almost impunity of dealers became a serious threat to society. Something had to be done, but yes, the killings were more than unnecessary.

I very much doubt that the killings performed were just for the two reasons you mentioned. I believe that the killings were performed exactly because the depressing list of recent historical human rights violations you have listed, the impunity of the violators, and the lack, and even supression of public debate outside mainly academic circles.

This was the way how to defeat perceived threats against Thai society (or what is defined as Thai society), it was succeful, and debate was successfully opressed for the greater good, and the continuation of the basic definition of Thainess as taught to the people.

The killings had precedents, and followed a well established pattern in Thai society, regardless of the existence of this constitution or not. I doubt that all the previous massacres were permitted by any constitution of Thailand either.

And now, the debate is limited to Thaksin, without questioning what either led to Thaksin, and the drugwar killings. Again, underlying faults in definition of Thainess that have led to yet another massacre are left untouched, and debate about this is still supressed. Even here, on this board, i see many posters attempting to supress debate, even if it is within the permitted limits.

You made an impressive list of state sponsored human rights violations (there were a few more). What though is lacking in almost everyone, is open public debate, investigation, and trial of culprits. Even the most recent event before the drugwar killings is maybe debated along set parameters, but Suchinda is still free. Officers whose troops were directly involved in the May Massacre are now Prime Minister, and CNS leader, and the investigation is still kept secret.

If even now, by chance Thaksin is actually brought to court, that might be a step forward compared to '92, though a very tiny miniscule step, as long as the drugwar is limited to his role. But i would even bet a small amount that he will not see a trial, or even be convicted.

I would suggest you to read 'Problems in Contemporary Thai Nationalist Historiography' by Patrick Jory, or 'Toppling Thaksin' by Kasian Tejapira. Both papers do not directly deal with the drugwar killings, but they do give you an idea of contributing factors and supression of open debate in Thailand.

Reading those might lead to a less single minded and boring discussion here right now.

[marshbags]

He did it purely for the popular vote and for family reasons.

History

That is a point i do strongly disagree with.

He did it because the drug situation was indeed out of hand before the drugwar. Some here may have been sitting in ivory towers, but reality is that the spread of drugs and almost impunity of dealers became a serious threat to society. Something had to be done, but yes, the killings were more than unnecessary.

I very much doubt that the killings performed were just for the two reasons you mentioned. I believe that the killings were performed exactly because the depressing list of recent historical human rights violations you have listed, the impunity of the violators, and the lack, and even supression of public debate outside mainly academic circles.

This was the way how to defeat perceived threats against Thai society (or what is defined as Thai society), it was succeful, and debate was successfully opressed for the greater good, and the continuation of the basic definition of Thainess as taught to the people.

The killings had precedents, and followed a well established pattern in Thai society, regardless of the existence of this constitution or not. I doubt that all the previous massacres were permitted by any constitution of Thailand either.

And now, the debate is limited to Thaksin, without questioning what either led to Thaksin, and the drugwar killings. Again, underlying faults in definition of Thainess that have led to yet another massacre are left untouched, and debate about this is still supressed. Even here, on this board, i see many posters attempting to supress debate, even if it is within the permitted limits.

You made an impressive list of state sponsored human rights violations (there were a few more). What though is lacking in almost everyone, is open public debate, investigation, and trial of culprits. Even the most recent event before the drugwar killings is maybe debated along set parameters, but Suchinda is still free. Officers whose troops were directly involved in the May Massacre are now Prime Minister, and CNS leader, and the investigation is still kept secret.

If even now, by chance Thaksin is actually brought to court, that might be a step forward compared to '92, though a very tiny miniscule step, as long as the drugwar is limited to his role. But i would even bet a small amount that he will not see a trial, or even be convicted.

I would suggest you to read 'Problems in Contemporary Thai Nationalist Historiography' by Patrick Jory, or 'Toppling Thaksin' by Kasian Tejapira. Both papers do not directly deal with the drugwar killings, but they do give you an idea of contributing factors and supression of open debate in Thailand.

Reading those might lead to a less single minded and boring discussion here right now.

If Thaksin had been really interested in getting rid of drugs surely he would have / should have targeted the suppliers first and foremost.

Without them there would have been a dramatic reduction in the food / supply chain, full stop.

Regarding the dealers as you label them, surely the objective in their case should have been to take them into SAFE custody so the authorities could gleen from them all the information they could provide in the way of identifying the main dealers and the supply chains.

NOT Execute / Murder and by doing so SILENCE them.

Why Thaksin didn,t do this indicates he was only interested in providing yet another platform for political gain and to enhance his own reputation as an astute leader who appeared to be ridding Thai society of this evil trade.

He was determined to have it happen on his watch as CEO of the government and of the country.

In doing so he put into action a crime most evil, immoral and inhuman that belies todays Thai democracy.

As such he must be the first to take the brunt of acountability and answer for his unquestionable leadership and approval to carry out these dastardly offences against humanity.

Over the last 5 years he has taken all the credit / responsibility re his policies for alledged benefits to Thai society.

On the same footing he must take credit and full responsibility for this policy which was a selfish project / policy to further his standing.

The price these poor souls had to pay was witnessed by people and their countries all around the globe.

Siripon,s post no. 143 sums it up very well and yes he did do it purely for political gain and to protect the Puyai who he depended on to carry out his corrupt leadership and ransacking of the country.

For which they are well documented in other ongoing threads and news publications if you wish to recap on what,s being investigated, plus daily updates.......................the list is growingggggg

Regarding this topic debate is ongoing and positive in the majority of cases thanks to intelligent and unbias contributions that just point out the facts.

Thaksin is the main instigator ( by his own admittance when boasting about the infamous accomplishments and taking full credit for them ) and he did it to enhance his ongoing reputation as a strong leader. Hmmmmmmm!!

He therefore, quite rightly, gets the due recognition he is being accredited with and earns the right to be tried first, as just law determines, via personal association.

marshbags

Edited December 7, 2006 by marshbags

[ColPyat]

Regarding the dealers as you label them, surely the objective in their case should have been to take them into SAFE custody so the authorities could gleen from them all the information they could provide in the way of identifying the main dealers and the supply chains.

NOT Execute / Murder and by doing so SILENCE them.

Why Thaksin didn,t do this indicates he was only interested in providing yet another platform for political gain and to enhance his own reputation as an astute leader who appeared to be ridding Thai society of this evil trade.

Apart from the several thousand killed - you forget that there were more than 50 000 people imprisoned during the first leg of the drugwar alone.

Some of the killings were indeed "silencing" killings, mostly ordered by mid ranking police officers involved, who have killed their own low level dealers. The involvement of police and army in the supply is well known, and these people, above a certain rank, are nearly untouchable. There were also increased cross border raids into Burma attacking drug caravans (still happens regularly).

There were grave mistakes made in the drugwar (apart from the killings). The basic idea was to decriminalise addiction, and to punish trade harsher than ever. Up to a certain amount of drugs (i don't remember exactly, i believe it was below 10 pills) people were only fined and sent to re-education camps (more than 300 000 people).

Problems of this policy was that the Thai system was not taken in account - the most obvious dealers were the heaviest addicts, selling to friends, who sold again to their own friends who sold to their friends. These people should have been counted under the 'addicts', and treated as such, and not as happened - under the supply.

Addicts though were given increased opportunities for therapy, and small scale addict dealers who gave up and registered at police stations were given amnesty, had to show though weekly results of clean tests. And yes, some of them were indeed killed in very mysterious circumstances.

Many things have not been thought out properly, so for example pharmacies could not sell clen needles anymore to heroin addicts, and therefore you have seen scenes of desparation in areas such as Klong Toey slum, where addicts were picking up used needles on the streets, and then using them.

Other side effects was a noticable rise of petty and violent crime. Obvious was because of the price rise of drugs (between 5 and 10 times higher than previous) addicts had a higher pressure to obtain drugs.

Another (my personal theory) reason for increased violence was that suddenly far too many people went on cold withdrawals from amphetamine addiction, lowered seratonin levels there leads to serious moodswings. The effect of amphetamines is a feeling of happines and empowerment in an otherwise dire life. Many kids turned to violence as replacement of this drug enduced empowerment. I don't know if that is a valid explanation, clear though is that the drug war saw a huge rise in general violence that has not decreased yet.

One of the basic problems of the drugwar was the involvement of police and army in the trade. People were given ample warning because of that, and most mid and high ranking dealers left for safer places in the month between announcement and start. Some went to foreign countries, some to safe villages.

[Old Man River]

Finally I'm afraid that even there is a large number of Thais who changed their position of support after it became clear the implementation policy was criminal and incompetent resulting inter alia in "innocents" being killed, I suspect the majority would subscribe to the no omelettes without broken eggs argument on the basis that most victims were "guilty".It's not my view but seems to be that of most Thais.

Admittedly, my frame of reference is Bangkok. Perhaps you have greater insight into the upcountry areas. As it relates to Bangkok, the vast majority of those I have discussed the war on drugs with initially agreed with your statement, but now, after being confronted by the media with the atrocities of the drug war (families torn apart), people are changing their minds. However, at the end of the day, the hill the current government needs to climb is persuading the people upcountry that it didn't have to happen this way. The more the media and current government brings out the atrocities of the former PM's war on drugs, the more those upcountry will realize that it isn't simply an issue that the dead are dead. The ones the dead left behind are suffering as well.

[hammered]

Finally I'm afraid that even there is a large number of Thais who changed their position of support after it became clear the implementation policy was criminal and incompetent resulting inter alia in "innocents" being killed, I suspect the majority would subscribe to the no omelettes without broken eggs argument on the basis that most victims were "guilty".It's not my view but seems to be that of most Thais.

Admittedly, my frame of reference is Bangkok. Perhaps you have greater insight into the upcountry areas. As it relates to Bangkok, the vast majority of those I have discussed the war on drugs with initially agreed with your statement, but now, after being confronted by the media with the atrocities of the drug war (families torn apart), people are changing their minds. However, at the end of the day, the hill the current government needs to climb is persuading the people upcountry that it didn't have to happen this way. The more the media and current government brings out the atrocities of the former PM's war on drugs, the more those upcountry will realize that it isn't simply an issue that the dead are dead. The ones the dead left behind are suffering as well.

In the Northern Region villages I know there has always been whispered (it had to be whispered) questioning of things related to the drug war right from day one. It was not about who was killed. It was about who was worse and was not targetted. It seems the answer was large drug dealers connected to TRT who also were major canvassers for the said party, which explains why it was always whispers in a location known to be safe with people who were trusted.

Now these villages I know are not so well controlled by TRT but the TRT influential ones are still there. There is now more questioning of the killing that was done, but not on the scale you suggest in Bangkok, but it is still mostly but not all in whispers.

[Old Man River]

Finally I'm afraid that even there is a large number of Thais who changed their position of support after it became clear the implementation policy was criminal and incompetent resulting inter alia in "innocents" being killed, I suspect the majority would subscribe to the no omelettes without broken eggs argument on the basis that most victims were "guilty".It's not my view but seems to be that of most Thais.

Admittedly, my frame of reference is Bangkok. Perhaps you have greater insight into the upcountry areas. As it relates to Bangkok, the vast majority of those I have discussed the war on drugs with initially agreed with your statement, but now, after being confronted by the media with the atrocities of the drug war (families torn apart), people are changing their minds. However, at the end of the day, the hill the current government needs to climb is persuading the people upcountry that it didn't have to happen this way. The more the media and current government brings out the atrocities of the former PM's war on drugs, the more those upcountry will realize that it isn't simply an issue that the dead are dead. The ones the dead left behind are suffering as well.

In the Northern Region villages I know there has always been whispered (it had to be whispered) questioning of things related to the drug war right from day one. It was not about who was killed. It was about who was worse and was not targetted. It seems the answer was large drug dealers connected to TRT who also were major canvassers for the said party, which explains why it was always whispers in a location known to be safe with people who were trusted.

Now these villages I know are not so well controlled by TRT but the TRT influential ones are still there. There is now more questioning of the killing that was done, but not on the scale you suggest in Bangkok, but it is still mostly but not all in whispers.

Thanks Hammered. I don't mean to say that people in Bangkok are openly discussing it. My conversations are private, but I am seeing a change in opinions from before. I am glad to hear your experiences are moving in the same direction. Seeing families torn apart as a means of eliminating enemies hurts all humans, regardless of socio economic status.

[ColPyat]

Thanks Hammered. I don't mean to say that people in Bangkok are openly discussing it. My conversations are private, but I am seeing a change in opinions from before. I am glad to hear your experiences are moving in the same direction. Seeing families torn apart as a means of eliminating enemies hurts all humans, regardless of socio economic status.

What do you mean with 'in the same direction'? Hammered stated:

In the Northern Region villages I know there has always been whispered (it had to be whispered) questioning of things related to the drug war right from day one. It was not about who was killed. It was about who was worse and was not targetted .

...and not that people should not have been targetted at all. That does not question the basic wrongness of extrajudical killings, more the opposite - that even more should have been killed that way.

And no, it was not only figures closed to TRT that got off free (those figures are anyhow always close to whoever is the present dominant power), but also high ranked soldiers, etc.

Edited December 7, 2006 by ColPyat

[marshbags]

Regarding the dealers as you label them, surely the objective in their case should have been to take them into SAFE custody so the authorities could gleen from them all the information they could provide in the way of identifying the main dealers and the supply chains.

NOT Execute / Murder and by doing so SILENCE them.

Why Thaksin didn,t do this indicates he was only interested in providing yet another platform for political gain and to enhance his own reputation as an astute leader who appeared to be ridding Thai society of this evil trade.

Apart from the several thousand killed - you forget that there were more than 50 000 people imprisoned during the first leg of the drugwar alone.

Some of the killings were indeed "silencing" killings, mostly ordered by mid ranking police officers involved, who have killed their own low level dealers. The involvement of police and army in the supply is well known, and these people, above a certain rank, are nearly untouchable. There were also increased cross border raids into Burma attacking drug caravans (still happens regularly).

There were grave mistakes made in the drugwar (apart from the killings). The basic idea was to decriminalise addiction, and to punish trade harsher than ever. Up to a certain amount of drugs (i don't remember exactly, i believe it was below 10 pills) people were only fined and sent to re-education camps (more than 300 000 people).

Problems of this policy was that the Thai system was not taken in account - the most obvious dealers were the heaviest addicts, selling to friends, who sold again to their own friends who sold to their friends. These people should have been counted under the 'addicts', and treated as such, and not as happened - under the supply.

Addicts though were given increased opportunities for therapy, and small scale addict dealers who gave up and registered at police stations were given amnesty, had to show though weekly results of clean tests. And yes, some of them were indeed killed in very mysterious circumstances.

Many things have not been thought out properly, so for example pharmacies could not sell clen needles anymore to heroin addicts, and therefore you have seen scenes of desparation in areas such as Klong Toey slum, where addicts were picking up used needles on the streets, and then using them.

Other side effects was a noticable rise of petty and violent crime. Obvious was because of the price rise of drugs (between 5 and 10 times higher than previous) addicts had a higher pressure to obtain drugs.

Another (my personal theory) reason for increased violence was that suddenly far too many people went on cold withdrawals from amphetamine addiction, lowered seratonin levels there leads to serious moodswings. The effect of amphetamines is a feeling of happines and empowerment in an otherwise dire life. Many kids turned to violence as replacement of this drug enduced empowerment. I don't know if that is a valid explanation, clear though is that the drug war saw a huge rise in general violence that has not decreased yet.

One of the basic problems of the drugwar was the involvement of police and army in the trade. People were given ample warning because of that, and most mid and high ranking dealers left for safer places in the month between announcement and start. Some went to foreign countries, some to safe villages.

First of all let us put to one side your bias for Thaksin in relation to his governance during the last 5 years re. corruption ect. and concentrate on the thread / topic we are debating here.

Much of this last post seems finally to echo many of the observations and concerns your fellow T.Visa members are making and you appear, through this, to now ephathise with.

So why, to put it in simple terms, shouldn,t Thaksin be made accountable as policy maker and overseer of this massacre, that followed under his personal guidance ?

On top of this he knew full well of all that happened and instead of calling a halt to it all by giving implicit instructions to arrest SUSPECTS and ensure their safety by personally intervening, for further investigation

Thus saving the majority of wasted human life and misery that continued / followed on.

Your last paragraph speaks volumes on what i read as your full awareness of what happened and why Thaksin was able to start such an aggressive campaign without any of his coherts in the police and armed forces, who where under his control, raising objections while sanctioning this unethical

programme.

They did so because he was the PUPPET MASTER and all those around / under him where his PUPPETS.

He was in TOTAL control and must as such take the brunt of the accountability, then whoever else that comes to the surface via implication,

Others of high standing and then their subordinates in that order right down the ladder.

You know also that NO ONE on his watch would have challenged him or indeed had any desire to do so.

What a terrible indictment for the TRT high and mighty and more importantly their CEO, THAKSIN

Above all, it is well documented, thanks to evil mouths personal boasting.

Shame on all of them.

marshbags and in fact, very

Edited December 7, 2006 by marshbags

[ColPyat]

First of all let us put to one side your bias for Thaksin in relation to his governance during the last 5 years re. corruption ect. and concentrate on the thread / topic we are debating here.

Much of this last post seems finally to echo many of the observations and concerns your fellow T.Visa members are making and you appear, through this, to now ephathise with.

Just because someone does not share your single - and simple minded views on Thaksin does not make him "biased for Thaksin". But you appear to judge things along the Bush doctrine - either you are for us, or you are against us.

Your last paragraph speaks volumes on what i read as your full awareness of what happened and why Thaksin was able to start such an aggressive campaign without any of his coherts in the police and armed forces, who where under his control, raising objections while sanctioning this unethical

programme.

They did so because he was the PUPPET MASTER and all those around / under him where his PUPPETS.

He was in TOTAL control and must as such take the brunt of the accountability, then whoever else that comes to the surface via implication,

I am fully aware of what happened during the drugwar (up to a certain point in Thailand's hirarchal structure where i do not have any access).

I am tired of repeating the same points over and over again. To get a more realistic picture I would suggest you to read the lectures of Prof. Giles Ungpakorn concerning Thaksin and TRT, and collaboration with other powerful sectors of Thai society (and you can hardly accuse him of being pro TRT, as he was outspoken against Thaksin before most TRT turncoats were part of forming the PAD). A very good paper is also 'Toppling Thaksin' by Kasian Tejapira.

Reading those will give a far more diversified picture than the repetition of your completely unrealistic view of "he was the PUPPET MASTER and in TOTAL control".

[Tony Clifton]

On top of this he knew full well of all that happened and instead of calling a halt to it all by giving implicit instructions to arrest SUSPECTS and ensure their safety by personally intervening, for further investigation

marshbags and in fact, very

Another example of this.

He also has never publicly called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing Democrat rallies, assaulting people, throwing chairs, targeting PAD supporters. Why? Because he approved of it and knew full well what was going on at the time.

[ColPyat]

Another example of this.

He also has never publicly called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing Democrat rallies, assaulting people, throwing chairs, targeting PAD supporters. Why? Because he approved of it and knew full well what was going on at the time.

You are wrong, again:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=30011754

Published on Aug 23, 2006 by The Nation

Earlier yesterday, at a weekly Cabinet meeting, Thaksin instructed relevant authorities to take legal action against all perpetrators in the fistfights at the Central World Plaza shopping complex on Monday, regardless of whether they were his supporters or detractors, government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said.

The caretaker prime minister instructed his deputy and caretaker Justice Minister Chidchai Vanasatidya to work with the relevant agencies to "ensure that the law is respected", the spokesman said. Thaksin also threatened to have relevant officials transferred as punishment if they failed to follow the instruction.

Edited December 7, 2006 by ColPyat

[Siripon]

Another example of this.

He also has never publicly called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing Democrat rallies, assaulting people, throwing chairs, targeting PAD supporters. Why? Because he approved of it and knew full well what was going on at the time.

You are wrong, again:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=30011754

Published on Aug 23, 2006 by The Nation

Earlier yesterday, at a weekly Cabinet meeting, Thaksin instructed relevant authorities to take legal action against all perpetrators in the fistfights at the Central World Plaza shopping complex on Monday, regardless of whether they were his supporters or detractors, government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said.

The caretaker prime minister instructed his deputy and caretaker Justice Minister Chidchai Vanasatidya to work with the relevant agencies to "ensure that the law is respected", the spokesman said. Thaksin also threatened to have relevant officials transferred as punishment if they failed to follow the instruction.

I enjoy the colonel's posts, to quote the emotional American tennis player of the late 70s, early 80s, Mr McEnroe- 'You can't be serious!'

So what action did Thaksin finally take against his goons?

Do you remember Thaksin's 'war on corruption'? I believe he had 2 wars!

How many people were prosecuted?

The most powerful PM in modern Thai history actually sent how many people to jail for corruption?

Answers please on a postcard.

[ColPyat]

I enjoy the colonel's posts, to quote the emotional American tennis player of the late 70s, early 80s, Mr McEnroe- 'You can't be serious!'

So what action did Thaksin finally take against his goons?

Do you remember Thaksin's 'war on corruption'? I believe he had 2 wars!

How many people were prosecuted?

The most powerful PM in modern Thai history actually sent how many people to jail for corruption?

Answers please on a postcard.

I believe you have just committed a logical fallacy.

Please read again Tony's post, and my answer to him, and what both contained. A hint - both did not contain the issues you raised.

[Tony Clifton]

Another example of this.

He also has never publicly called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing Democrat rallies, assaulting people, throwing chairs, targeting PAD supporters. Why? Because he approved of it and knew full well what was going on at the time.

You are wrong, again:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=30011754

Published on Aug 23, 2006 by The Nation

Earlier yesterday, at a weekly Cabinet meeting, Thaksin instructed relevant authorities to take legal action against all perpetrators in the fistfights at the Central World Plaza shopping complex on Monday, regardless of whether they were his supporters or detractors, government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said.

The caretaker prime minister instructed his deputy and caretaker Justice Minister Chidchai Vanasatidya to work with the relevant agencies to "ensure that the law is respected", the spokesman said. Thaksin also threatened to have relevant officials transferred as punishment if they failed to follow the instruction.

So if he did... ONCE! Less than a month before he was ousted and what does he care if he orders legal action to be taken against TRT hired ex-cons who had their criminal record cleaned (ya ba dealer/man in black) and thugs. He was only trying to cover his a55 after seeing how that event at the Plaza turned sour when senior citizens and a woman were punched, kicked, thrown to the ground. Again, only using people for his own benefit by showering them with baht notes.

[sriracha john]

On top of this he knew full well of all that happened and instead of calling a halt to it all by giving implicit instructions to arrest SUSPECTS and ensure their safety by personally intervening, for further investigation

marshbags and in fact, very

Another example of this.

He also has never publicly called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing Democrat rallies, assaulting people, throwing chairs, targeting PAD supporters. Why? Because he approved of it and knew full well what was going on at the time.

Yeah, Tony.

By the way, whatever did happen to those instigators that beat up old men and women?

Anything?

It's a good Thaksin was so strict with their prosecution... He was a real stalwart of justice.

[sriracha john]

Do you remember Thaksin's 'war on corruption'? I believe he had 2 wars!

How many people were prosecuted?

The most powerful PM in modern Thai history actually sent how many people to jail for corruption?

Answers please on a postcard.

I'd prefer to send them on the wings of a paper origami bird if that's ok...

and yes, that was one of his vaulted ideals pressed by his so-called platform to fight corruption. I don't suppose you can really call it a platform however because there was nothing there to stand on. It was all a big lie. His idea of fighting corruption was to corner the market on it for himself.

[Plus]

"Thaksin instructed relevant authorities to take legal action against all perpetrators in the fistfights" is not exactly "called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing..."

Re. Kasian's paper - it's good for leftist websites and blogs. Good stuff for those who have never been here or followed the news.

So Kasian can get away with calling Sondhi a "militant oppositionist" and go on about how "TRT had taken nearly every seat in the House of Representatives."

Nowhere does Kasian mention the huge NO vote or that over thirty seats had no chance of ever being filled. Nowhere does Kasian mention election boycott by opposition parties either.

That would be against his starting point - the King overturning results of a democratic election.

Where he goes from there is groundless, ideologically driven anti-monarchy tirades inserted between paragraphs describing modern Thai history.

The worst part of it is that this pseudo intellectual stuff is targeted for newbies, it won't stand public scrutiny in Thailand as it's filled with disinformation.

[sriracha john]

"Thaksin instructed relevant authorities to take legal action against all perpetrators in the fistfights" is not exactly "called a halt on his supporters and the hiring of goons to stop disturbing..."

Re. Kasian's paper - it's good for leftist websites and blogs. Good stuff for those who have never been here or followed the news.

So Kasian can get away with calling Sondhi a "militant oppositionist" and go on about how "TRT had taken nearly every seat in the House of Representatives."

Nowhere does Kasian mention the huge NO vote or that over thirty seats had no chance of ever being filled. Nowhere does Kasian mention election boycott by opposition parties either.

That would be against his starting point - the King overturning results of a democratic election.

Where he goes from there is groundless, ideologically driven anti-monarchy tirades inserted between paragraphs describing modern Thai history.

The worst part of it is that this pseudo intellectual stuff is targeted for newbies, it won't stand public scrutiny in Thailand as it's filled with disinformation.

Thank you for your review...

hmmm... sounds like a really, really, really different view of things... one so far removed from the facts that it seems to be better put to use to line the bottom of a bird cage.

The idea that he would have such glaring omissions as you cite really would make me wonder why on Earth anyone would recommend it....

but then again... fiction can be entertaining, so as a bit of imaginary tale telling, perhaps it might be worth a look-see. I'll put it on the list to skim through when I want a chuckle.

[ColPyat]

Re. Kasian's paper - it's good for leftist websites and blogs. Good stuff for those who have never been here or followed the news.

Where he goes from there is groundless, ideologically driven anti-monarchy tirades inserted between paragraphs describing modern Thai history.

The worst part of it is that this pseudo intellectual stuff is targeted for newbies, it won't stand public scrutiny in Thailand as it's filled with disinformation.

Interesting, anything that does not comply with your preconceived notions is simplistically brushed away as "leftist" and gets a tirade of emotional attacks. You might serve your cause better if you attempt to factually refute, and substantiate with references, quotes, etc.

FYI: Kasian Tejapira's short bio:

Lecturer, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University

After graduating from Thammasat University, Dr. Kasian received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from Cornell University.

Yes, for "newbies"...

Edited December 7, 2006 by ColPyat

[Plus]

Do I need to refute that Sondhi was not a "militant oppositionist"???

And he did shamelessly omitted no vote and opposition boycott from his analysis of April 2 elections.

I mean this so called intellectual talks about April elections and doesn't mention opposition boycott?!?!?

Refuting him would only give him undue credence.

[ColPyat]

Do I need to refute that Sondhi was not a "militant oppositionist"???

And he did shamelessly omitted no vote and opposition boycott from his analysis of April 2 elections.

I mean this so called intellectual talks about April elections and doesn't mention opposition boycott?!?!?

Refuting him would only give him undue credence.

I don't think that a lecturer at the second best university in Thailand does not need you to give him "credence", unless you have similar qualifications in a related field, which i seriously doubt.

The reasons and impact of the "no" vote is anymore a very moot point to debate here as no proper and independent research has ever been made on how many meant agreement with the PAD and how many was simply traditional voterbase of the other main parties that have boycotted the vote. Your assumption of attributing the results of the 'no' vote to the PAD alone would not stand up in any serious debate.

And if we look at the pro TRT votes alone, then the 48% or so would be, even though lower than the post tsunami result, would be a result that any party in a multi party system would be delighted of.

And yes, i know that you attribute this result to vote buying and corruption alone, but Giles Ungpakorn has a far more reasonable and diversified argumentation in this subject matter, based actually on research and not just troglodyte peer support of anonymous internet boards.

But yes, i know, poster 'Plus' does not accept Prof. Ungkaporn, because that Professor is too "leftist" for his taste.

[Plus]

I don't accept Giles not because he is leftist but because he often talks nonsense. Because he, like lots of other people, including Kasian, appears to put ideology first and then pick up selective facts to support their theories. Not dissimilar to neo-con rightists who made a WMD case for invasion of Iraq.

I have nothing against leftist ideology per se - Chomsky is one of my favourite intellectuals but I can't stand those zany lunatics who expand on his theories on z-net. That's what Kasian reminded me of - fired up morons on a mission. To hel_l with facts and reality and logic and reason, all is sacrificed for a cause.

In your last post you said more about no vote than Kasian in his 20 page paper. He just conviniently omitted it, in election report. Not important, doesn't fit his anti-monarchy crusade.

His credentials do not impress me, his ability to twist facts does.

[ColPyat]

I don't accept Giles not because he is leftist but because he often talks nonsense. Because he, like lots of other people, including Kasian, appears to put ideology first and then pick up selective facts to support their theories. Not dissimilar to neo-con rightists who made a WMD case for invasion of Iraq.

I have nothing against leftist ideology per se - Chomsky is one of my favourite intellectuals but I can't stand those zany lunatics who expand on his theories on z-net. That's what Kasian reminded me of - fired up morons on a mission. To hel_l with facts and reality and logic and reason, all is sacrificed for a cause.

In your last post you said more about no vote than Kasian in his 20 page paper. He just conviniently omitted it, in election report. Not important, doesn't fit his anti-monarchy crusade.

His credentials do not impress me, his ability to twist facts does.

I just hope for you that you never gonna meet Chomski in person - he's gonna eat you up for breakfast - a more royalist than the royalists with sympathies for some leftists...

Maybe, if you would put the monarchist issue aside, for a moment, and look again at Giles Ungpakorn and other academics here, you might find out that he in fact is one of the most realistic and undogmatic leftwingers around, and makes perfect sense when he talks about Thailand.

Especially because these people are in fact Thai, go against the mainstream, and therefore should be especially listened to.

But you are not alone here, rest assured. More than a few people who had left wing sympathies in their home countries got charmed by the Thai illusion and exprience, and threw all their sympathies out of the window as long as they concern Thailand. It obviously helps that the reigning monarch here makes many statements that can be easily supported by both progressive left and conservative right without obvious conflicts.

I would advise you to have a read though 'Problems in Contemporary Thai Nationalist Historiography' by Patrick Jory. This paper shows very clear how perception of Thai history and identity has been influenced by ideology more than facts, and how factual research has been hindered all along.

[Plus]

I would advise you not to distract the thread with extensive readings of Thai history and comparative ideology analysis. You brought in Kasian, he was damaged goods. Isn't that enough already? Can you talk about ANY topic without trying to make a case for revolution?

[ColPyat]

I would advise you not to distract the thread with extensive readings of Thai history and comparative ideology analysis. You brought in Kasian, he was damaged goods. Isn't that enough already? Can you talk about ANY topic without trying to make a case for revolution?

What is the point of touching such a complex subject as the accountability of Thaksin, when not seen in historical and social context?

If you are happy to limit to debate to the standards of a drunk beerhall debate, the you will have to find ways to exclude people like me.

And, i don't really see where i make a case for "revolution". En contraire, i try to make a case for "development" in order to avoid "revolution".