New Mandala

68 responses so far ↓

• 1 patiwat // Oct 28, 2006 at 6:07 pm

  Don’t read too much into a new government’s policy statement. They’re always very vague. Thaksin’s policy statements have usually been a bit more concrete, but even they contain lots of hand-waving. See the policy statement of Thaksin’s 2001 government for example: http://www.thaiembdc.org/politics/govtment/policy/54thpolicy/policy_e.html

  A much more meaningful statement for analysis would be a party’s pre-election campaign platform, which the current government doesn’t have, of course.

• 2 Nirut // Oct 28, 2006 at 7:35 pm

  It reads a lot like a ratification of a UNDP development “declaration” after one of their global summits…or the like…vague, yet dangerously ideological…crossing the international funding “Ts” and dotting the diplomatic “I s” while in reality it is business as usual.

• 3 Bystander // Oct 29, 2006 at 9:06 am

  I’m not too enthusiastic about the part of about “Virtue before knowledge” in the educational policy. Chances are we will be left with neither virtue nor knowledge. I’m afraid we are doomed to mediocrity when it comes to education, at least in our lifetime.

• 4 New Mandala » Virtuous sufficiency // Oct 29, 2006 at 5:54 pm

  [...] As regular contributor – Patiwat – warns, Surayud’s policy manifesto should not be taken too seriously. But, to my reading, there are a number of issues worth further discussion. [...]

• 5 Cassandra // Oct 31, 2006 at 10:12 pm

  The goal of education is “Virtue before knowledge”?

  Sounds like something from North Korea or Myanmar or even Russia in the 1920s

  But surely not Thailand?

  Only 5 out of 10. Rewrite your essay after rugby on Saturday….more thorough research required

• 6 Vichai N. // Nov 1, 2006 at 12:14 am

  Let us pause and pay respects to 2,500 tormented souls killed by Thaksin Shinawatra the Executioner.

  There is anguish and torment in those 2,500 innocent souls that Thaksin Shinawatra caused to be killed. None of those victims deserve to die, nor, die in such horrific and inhumane circumstances. There was nothing in the constitution nor by parliament’s assent that gave authority to Thaksin Shinawatra, even with his powers as Prime Minister, to employ extreme prejudice against these 2,500 defenseless villagers merely suspects (in ya ba trafficking) by way of some dubious blacklists that in no way gave license to abandon due process merely on say so of Thaksin Shinawatra.

  Every Thai should be shamed if they ignore these anguished 2,500 souls crying for justice against their executioner Thaksin Shinawatra.

• 7 Simple question // Nov 1, 2006 at 3:01 pm

  Vichai, why isn’t the junta investigating the war against drugs? They’ve assigned armies of people to investigate dozens of charges against Thaksin and his family, even the triffling stuff. Yet they ignore the war against drugs. What does that tell you about the military’s motives?

• 8 Bystander // Nov 1, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  IIRC, a poll at that time of the War on Drugs found that 80+ % of Thais supported it. That’s the saddest part, if true.

• 9 Vichai N // Nov 1, 2006 at 11:50 pm

  CNS finally came out with a statement that they have a lead to tie in a Thaksin aide in connection with the disappearance of the human rights lawyer Somchai N. (whom Thaksin had publicly declared is already dead, but kept quiet since then).

  I am perplexed as anyone else why the junta is taking so long to hone in on Thaksin’s human rights abuses. Thaksin’s extrajudicial murderous rampage in that Y2003 anti-ya ba campaign clearly was a violation of Thailand’s constitutional rule of law.

  Perhaps the junta’s priorities are misplaced. Because lots of Thais demand quick results on Thaksin’s corruption spree.

  Personally I believe the junta is making a mistake. They should target Thaksin’s human rights abuses first, then Thaksin’s corruption second.

• 10 James Haughton // Nov 2, 2006 at 1:18 am

  Let’s remember that whatever Thaksin may have SAID, it’s the military and paramilitary police who actually pulled the triggers.

• 11 Vichai N // Nov 2, 2006 at 2:33 am

  I dispute that James Haughton (#10).

  Those police underlings were merely following direct orders from the top. Thaksin Shinawatra was micro-managing the anti- ya ba campaign truly intent on extrajudicial killings of thousands of suspects to demonstrate Thaksin’s godlike powers. Thaksin Shinawatra first demanded ‘blacklists’ from the underpaid undertrained village police, then followed that up with demands for weekly body counts, mercilessly under the killed reached the thousands.

  Thaksin figuratively pulled the triggers. Those village police underlings had no choice but to follow Thaksin’s speciic orders to kill.

• 12 patiwat // Nov 2, 2006 at 8:43 am

  On the contrary, Vichai N, if local police forces drew up the deathlists and then followed orders to illegally kill the drug-dealers, then the police are also guilty. “Just following orders” is not a valid defense when the orders are clearly illegal. We are human beings, and always have a choice about whether to do right or wrong. Read up on Nuremberg.

  The same can be said about the military. Some of the most sickening human rights abuses in the South were committed by soldiers on the ground like Pallop Pinmanee.

  Going after Thaksin for his alleged human rights abuses would implicate literally thousands of policemen and soldiers. That would probably result in a counter-coup against the junta. The junta has officially said it wants love, harmony, and unity, not justice. Vichai, if you truly want justice for the dead, you can’t rely on the military to be your knights in shining armor – they too, have blood on their hands.

• 13 Vichai N // Nov 2, 2006 at 12:39 pm

  You think so Patiwat? But I believe if the courts do proceed to prosecute on the Thaksin Y2003 extrajudicial rampage . . . the courts would take into considerable consideration that those village policemen, undertrained and underpaid easily succumb to AUTHORITY. If I were the lawyer to defend the policemen who did pull the triggers, that would be the weight of my argument in their defense for mercy.

  But for Thaksin Shinawatra he deserves no mercy. He alone, and perhaps the Interior Minister and some very senior Police officers should be punished to the full force of the law because gentlemen murders were committed, thousands of village innocents were extrajudicially executed, without due process and in clear violation of the rule of law.

• 14 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 2, 2006 at 8:51 pm

  Vichai, you do realise that extra-judicial killings you are referring to is in Thai วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which in English does not mean extra judicial killings. It refers to any death at the hands of a police officer which includes acts of self-defence.

  This is not to say that there no unjustified killings by the police, but if you are going to throw around terms and figures at least try to make sure they are accurate.

• 15 Vichai N // Nov 2, 2006 at 10:47 pm

  Well Pundit I ask you Is my legal term ‘Extrajudicial Killings’ accurate or not knowing you are probably better in the English language than I?

  Am I accurate when I say Thaksin Shinawatra violated lthe Thai consitutional rule of law when he directed the extrajudicial murderous rampage in Y2003 that resulted in 2,500 village innocents killed?

  Stop throwing Thai translations when we are talking of substance Pundit. You did say “include police self-defense”, but the more common meaning for วิสามัญฆาตกรรม
  is extrajudicial killing of a suspect without due process.

  Thaksin did the whole thing for show and effect and to impress . . garner publicity that he was a macho leader. Thaksin wanted to be a superstar, a bloody superstar Pundit!

  Thaksin was a Police Lt. Colonel before he was a parliamentarian and a Prime Minister. The rule of law should have been religion to Thaksin . . he was elected to uphold the law and not break it, nor demonstrate that he could be above it.

  As a former policeman, Thaksin must have fully appreciated that those village policemen who were uneducated, undertrained, underpaid and most probably very corrupt, were unreliable hicks. When Thaksin put a bounty on the arrested and killed (not merely arrested). Thaksin was really intent on demonstrating that he can order the killings of Thais to show off his ‘godly’ powers. First he demanded of the village police hicks those terrible blacklists. Then he started micro-managing the slaughter by demanding body counts and kill quotas BKK Pundit. Thaksin knew very well those village policemen hicks would go on a murderous rampage to collect their bounty and meet their quota.

  Pundit stop defending Thaksin, The Executioner of Thailand.

  Thaksin was elected to uphold the laws of Thailand. Thaksin should have followed strict legal procedures to prosecute those ya ba suspects of which none deserved to be executed but jailed at best if found to be guilty.

  Thaksin as Prime Minister could have passsed the toughest and most punishing anti-drug legislation in the world if he truly wanted to make an impression against drug trafficking in Thailand. (Thaksin virtually and literally owned Thai parliament at that time), That Thaksin instead resorted to the ‘popular’ but quite clearly unethical and illegal extrajudicial display was abhorrent and despicable.

  Those 2,500 village innocents deserve justice Pundit. And Thaksin deserve to be judicially prosecuted for the 2,500 murders of these innocents.

• 16 fall // Nov 2, 2006 at 11:26 pm

  Regardless, I think Patiwat comment 12 strike a point.
  The last thing the junta need right now is more enemy from the INSIDE.

  Pursuing drug related killing right now would still not justify their reason for the coup and open themselves to attack from the Dem all the while.

• 17 James Haughton // Nov 3, 2006 at 2:02 am

  I seem to recall that most of those killings were carried out in the name of making Thailand drug free by the time of the King’s golden jubilee. The consensus seems to be that HM King Bhumibol approved of them.

• 18 nganadeeleg // Nov 3, 2006 at 8:25 am

  The killings happened on Thaksins watch, so he has to bear responsibility for them.

  pro coup = anti extraducial killings,
  anti coup = pro extra judicial killings?

• 19 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 3, 2006 at 9:15 am

  “but the more common meaning for วิสามัญฆาตกรรม
  is extrajudicial killing of a suspect without due process.”

  Oh, really? But this is not what it means. The Thai Ministry of Justice has tried to correct the misunderstanding without success.

  I wonder what your views are on this then:

  “It is said the prime minister’s war on drugs killed about 2,500 people. That is not correct. Most of them were killed by their accomplices and others by the government crackdown,” the King said.

  Given your statements in other posts, I didn’t think you would disagree with HM the King. Or are you going to revise your numbers and statements?

  How was staging the coup within the rule of law?

• 20 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 3, 2006 at 9:23 am

  Nganadeelang: Please point to where I have been supportive of extra-judicial killings. What do you mean by extra-judicial killings? Do you include people killed in self-defence? If can established that the police killed someone in self-defence, I don’t have a problem with it. However, if the police killed someone and they have no defence to the killing then I am against this and have no problem with any prosecution. Is that clear?

  So does Thaksin bear responsibility because they happened on his watch, or does Thaksin bear responsibility because he was behind the killings? There is a big difference between the two.

• 21 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 3, 2006 at 9:32 am

  Kuhn Vichai: You will be pleased to know some police officers have admitted to their involvement in วิสามัญฆาตกรรม already. Police officers openly admit it is part of their biography. Google will show you dozens of other instances. You should alert Gen Surayud and Gen Sonthi to these cases of “extra-judicial” killings.

• 22 patiwat // Nov 3, 2006 at 11:44 am

  I think that Thaksin’s implemention of the war on drugs hasn’t ever been examined really deeply. There is a lot of tendency to polarize things. The haters say Thaksin the murderer individually ordered deathsquad killings as a display of personal power, in complete disregard to human rights and the rule of law. The backers say Thaksin managed-by-objectives and for the first time in Thai history, put a stop to the drug trade. You can’t really believe either side. But since the junta doesn’t seem to care about it, we’ll never really know the truth.

  Also, the issue of individual police responsibility hasn’t been addressed at all. In some countries, there are clear rules about when a policeman can shoot to kill. For instance, in the US, policeman can shoot to kill if they think the suspect is pointing a gun at them. Of course, a policeman can always lie, and policemen in any country will always protect their own people. But in Thailand the rules aren’t even clear. And to make matters worse, Thai police are “uneducated, undertrained, underpaid and most probably very corrupt, unreliable hicks” (as noted by Vichai N). I don’t think that absolves them from guilt, but when the public perceives its enforcers of justice in that light, it becomes very hard to have much faith in justice.

• 23 nganadeeleg // Nov 3, 2006 at 11:51 am

  Bangkok Pundit said:
  ‘So does Thaksin bear responsibility because they happened on his watch, or does Thaksin bear responsibility because he was behind the killings? There is a big difference between the two.’

  on his watch – definitely
  behind the killings – he didn’t pull the trigger, but he gave the green light, set targets etc.

  As for the Kings comments – please understand his position:
  - over 2000 people killed in 3 months does not look good for the country
  - the country was facing stong criticism from groups like amnesty & hrw etc
  - does he want the country to be seen as so barbaric that government sponsored killings are acceptable?

• 24 Vichai N // Nov 3, 2006 at 12:59 pm

  Messrs. Patiwat and Nganadeeleg, I am pleased to note, at least acknowledge the logic in posters that Thaksin Shinawatra had grievously abused his powers, and violated the rule of law, in the Y2003 extrajudicial murderous directed by Thaksin Shinawatra himself against defenseless villagers merely because they were in some village policemen’s blacklist.

  But Pundit in the meantime make every effort to picture Thaksin Shinawatra blameless in the affair. Tut tut Pundit, our slip is showing my dear.

  What should bother people about the Y2003 extrajudicials was that Thaksin Shinawatra could have stopped the insane killings wants the first reports of body counts started coming in. But that was not case . . Thaksin instead intensified the pace of the killings impatient at some targetted body count numbers he felt he had to meet, as promised to his Khmer shaman perhaps?

  Pundit what is extrajudicial killing? Thaksin and his then Interior Minister Wan Muhammad defined ‘extrajudicial’ in Y2003.

  “They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country.” – Then Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha said of drug traffickers

  “In this war, drug dealers must die” -Thaksin

  “There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do” -Thaksin

  And to make sure that the Police gets the message, Taksin amended ‘regulations on rewards for narcotics arrest-convictions’ that bonuses are to be paid in full if “suspects are killed during arrests or later”. But arrests without convictions won’t get the full bonuses.

• 25 jeru // Nov 3, 2006 at 1:40 pm

  Vichai, Patiwat, Pundit & Nganadeeleg – Among those killed in Y2003 anti-ya ba were a pregnant mother, a one year old baby, a seven year old child, and a 76 year old grandmother.

  Here are some of the drug suspects extrajudicially killed during Taksin’s 2003 murderous rampage:
  ————————-
  Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra announced on 28 January 2003 that a ‘war on drugs’ would begin on February 1, and continue until April 30, at which time the country would be drug-free. As a result, over 2000 persons lost their lives during this three-month period, murdered on the streets, in houses, restaurants and shops around the country. Others who escaped death have been forced into hiding or had their reputations and livelihoods ruined. Below is a selection of cases compiled from complaints received and investigated by non-governmental organizations, the media and other sources.

  Targeted killings by “unidentified gunmen”

  The war on drugs got off to its promised start on the night of January 31-February 1, with “unidentified gunmen” killing Boonchuay and Yupin Unthong as they were about to return home with their son, eight-year-old Jirasak, in the streets of Ban Rai, Damnoen Saduak district, Ratchaburi. The family had spent the evening playing fairground games at a local temple, and had all climbed aboard a motorcycle to go home. They had not gone more than 200 metres when two men dressed in black wearing ski masks pulled up alongside on another motorcycle. The man on the back shot Jirasak’s mother, and Boonchuay unsuccessfully tried to speed away. The motorcycle crashed onto the pavement, and bleeding on the road Boonchuay shouted to his son to run. Jirasak escaped over a fence and hiding, watched as the man shot his father in the head. Boonchay had been released from prison three months ago, where he had served 18 months for drug offenses, and Yupin was also on a drug blacklist. Relatives said that neither had been involved in drugs since Boonchuay’s release from jail. Boonchay’s brother Samruay Thinrung said that justice should have been allowed to take its course. “Being tried in court and executed in one day would have been more acceptable than having my brother shot dead in the street,” he said. Phanom, his uncle, added that whatever their offences, “Killing people in the streets is just too cruel.”

  Many killings occurred shortly after the victims had been called to a police station. Suwit Baison, a 23 year-old assistant television cameraman kneeled down before Prime Minister Thaksin as he arrived at the Agriculture Ministry for a meeting on February 27. Suwit told Thaksin that his mother, Kwanla Puangchomphum, and stepfather, Thanom Montak, were shot dead on February 26 shortly after they left the Tha Chaliang police station in Nong Phai district, Phetchabun. The couple had gone to pay a 5000 Baht (US5) fine for marijuana possession. His parents were shot while riding a motorcycle home, about five kilometers from the police station. Witnesses said the gunman was driving a white sedan, which according to Suwit was spotted at the police station car park. With tears rolling down his cheeks and his voice trembling, Suwit handed a petition to Thaksin, asking for justice. He said local police had dismissed the shootings as “drugs-related” and made no effort to conduct a proper investigation. The Prime Minister promised to look into the matter. An hour later, Crime Suppression Division commander Major General Surasit Sangkapong talked to Suwit for about 10 minutes before they left together for further questioning at Surasit’s office. Surasit said he would assign one of his deputies to investigate the shooting. According to Nong Phai district police superintendent, Colonel Phisan Iamla-or, however, Suwit’s parents were on a list of people who allegedly possessed drugs that had been prepared at a gathering of villagers. He said the couple had been arrested separately on four occasions with marijuana and methamphetamine pills. However, Suwit claims that his stepfather was arrested during the month on a charge of marijuana use, at which time the police tried to make him admit to methamphetamine possession. He also alleged that his mother had been falsely charged with possession last year, but had been told by police that for 50,000 Baht (US,200) they would reduce the charge. After the couple consulted a lawyer, the police contacted them and told them to report to the station.

  A day after Kwanla and Thanom’s deaths, another person in the neighbourhood was murdered in a similar manner, again a ‘reformed’ drug user turned victim of the ‘war’. Boonyung Tangtong, a 40 year-old father, had reported to Na Chaliang police station, Petchabun, as ordered. Shortly after, nine armed men came to his house, took him into his bedroom and shot him in the head and chest. His murder took place in full view of his wife and children, including a two-year-old daughter, and two other relatives, who were held captive with guns against their heads. Boonyung had turned himself in to the police about a year ago, and twice took part in the government’s reform program. Adirek, his 16-year-old son, is positive that the police murdered his father. “They all were wearing name and rank tags around their necks, but they didn’t look familiar. They could have come from other places,” he said after the shooting. Ten persons in the area were reportedly killed after reporting to police during the first weeks of the campaign.

  Likewise, on February 17, three days before eight “unidentified gunmen” entered her house in Ban Laem district, Petchaburi, and shot her eight times, Somjit Kuanyuyen, a 42 year-old mother, reported to the police after her name appeared on a blacklist. According to her nephew, ‘Sak’ she went to the Ban Laem police station with her husband and was told to go into a side room and sign a paper. However, Somjit was illiterate and did not know what it was. Terrified, she marked the document. The police informed her that after signing the paper she would be safe and could come to see them any time if anything suspicious happened. On February 20 her 7-months pregnant daughter saw a pickup truck with dark tinted windows and no license plates stop at the front of the house. It contained four men with crew cut hairstyles, wearing sunglasses and black clothes. Two of the men approached the grocery stand at the house ostensibly to buy some beer. One nodded his head and the other fired at Somjit, hitting her in the arm while her seven-year-old granddaughter clung to her leg. There were three other persons in the house, including Somjit’s daughter. They watched as Somjit fell after the first shot and the man fired another six shots into her back, killing her. After the men left, although the house is very close to a main road and only 20 metres from a police box, the police took a long time to arrive and investigate. They did not set up checkpoints or take any other steps to arrest the murderers. They didn’t collect the bullet shells, which were instead taken up by the family. They asked Somjit’s daughter and cousin if her family was involved in drugs, but asked no questions about the murder itself. When the daughter made it clear that her mother had had nothing to do with drugs, the police warned her, “Don’t speak too much”. For his part, Ban Laem police commander, Colonel Taveesak na Songkhla said that Somjit’s name was on a list submitted to them by the Drug Suppression Office in Bangkok. He claims his officers searched the scene, but found no bullet casings. “If the relatives have found bullet casings, they should give them to the police instead of keeping them and saying that we are ignoring the case,” he said. Colonel Taveesak also mentioned that although the police were working on solving such murder cases, “investigation cannot be totally efficient because we need to use officers to arrest those blacklisted in order to fulfill the government quota.” The family tried to complain to their local Member of Parliament, but could not find him. They then went to the provincial office of the Law Society of Thailand and were advised to tell the media.

  The police and government preferred to characterize most killings by “unidentified gunmen” as “bad guys killing bad guys” or “killing to cut the link”(kar tad torn). In one particularly brutal case described in these terms, locals allege that uniformed police in fact tortured and murdered four ethnic Hmong men on February 12. The four men, 45-year-old Jai-jue Sae Thao, his younger brother Somchai Sae Thao, their 59-year-old cousin, Boonma Sae Thao, and Seng Sae Thao, the 59-year-old head of Doi Nam Pieng Nam Din village, Bann Neun sub district, Lom Kao district, Petchabun, were travelling by pickup truck after attending the Lom Kao district office. According to Jai-jue’s son, Sornchai Sae Thao, his father had been charged with carrying an illegal shotgun, and on February 11 had received an order to go to court. Jai-jue was said to be getting a transfer of ownership on the gun, which he kept with him for protection when alone on his farm at nights. Jai-jue contacted the village head to go with him as guarantor in his case, and he found that the head had also received a notice, that his name was on a list and he had to report to the police. That notice was issued by the district office of Lom Kao, and the person who brought the charge sheet to Jai-jue was the same as the person who gave the notice to the village head. The following morning, both of them went to the district office in the village head’s pickup truck. Jai-jue also asked his brother Somchai to go with him. Boonma was getting a lift to buy medicine for his 18-month-old daughter, who was suffering from acute diarrhoea. According to Sornchai, a villager who had met his father in court said that when his father appeared there the judge knew nothing about the charge and said he had not been the one to call him to the court. Seng Sae also did not report to the district office because the officer who should receive the report was out, and so they then began returning home. Around midday, about fourteen kilometres short of their village, they were all shot dead. According to Sornchai, one villager saw the incident and at first insisted that police in uniform shot them. However, that villager was called to Lom Kao police station for a talk, and after that became very quiet and apprehensive. Several villagers also witnessed at least one police motorcycle in the area at the time of the killings. A Doi Nam villager walking nearby was the first to see the bodies themselves. That person went to tell the men’s relatives, and all of them went to the place and found that the pickup was gone but the four dead bodies were pulled together at the side of the road. All four had been shot in the head, and in addition all of them showed signs of brutal torture:

  - Jai-jue had a broken chin and bruised eyes;

  - Boonma’s body was burnt on its left side, and his face had been stabbed with a sharp object, leaving a triangular shape; the back of his head was also reportedly severely damaged;

  - Somchai had a broken neck and collarbone;

  - Seng Sae appeared to have beaten.

  According to Boonma’s son, Tu Sae Thao, his father’s wallet with 2000 Baht (US) and his watch were missing. According to Sornchai, the charge sheet against his father also was missing. The police on the scene claimed that they knew nothing of what had happened and that the pickup truck also was missing when they arrived. However, one police officer reportedly walked behind the village head’s son and told him discreetly that it was not police from Lom Kao but from neighbouring Lom Sak who had killed the men. Although the bodies were sent to Somdej Yuppharaj hospital for autopsy, no result has been sent to relatives and they don’t dare ask for it. The hospital also has not given any official paper to acknowledge the deaths, except one for Boonma because his relatives went to the district office to demand it. The paper says only that Boonma was shot and killed. Meanwhile, the doctor who conducted the autopsy is reported to have handed the bullets over to the police, but it is now not known where the bullets have been sent. According to the source of that information, however, the village head was killed with a .38 calibre weapon (the size of police-issue pistols).

  While the target of the killing seems to have been Seng Sae, the family members of the three other men insist that it was impossible for them to be drug sellers, as they never even smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol. However, when the case was reported in the media the police informed newspapers that all four were “suspected drug dealers” When contacted further on this point, the investigating officer Major Amnuay Yamark said that police believed it was a case of “killing to cut the link” because the village head was a big drug seller. He said that he didn’t have details about the other three men’s backgrounds and their names were not on the blacklist. After relatives complained to him and other police that there had been no progress in the investigation, they were told that police are investigating the case ’secretly’.

  In a similar case, six local leaders were shot dead in Ban Pang Khon, Huay Chompu sub district, Muang (’Central’ district, Chiang Rai, while returning in a pick-up truck from an anti-drug meeting on February 27. They were all ethnic Yao villagers, identified as 46-year-old Ban Pa Luang village head Kiattisak Saksrichompoo, 40-year-old Kaoguay Sae Tern, 36-year-old Ulong Sae Fan, and 29-year-olds Bunma Sae Fan, Uguay Sae Tern and Somdej Sae Tern. All but Kiattisak were local administration officials of Huay Chomphu sub-district. At around 4pm, while they were away at the meeting at the Supanimit Foundation, a pickup truck with four men reportedly came to the village and stopped in front of the headman’s house. One of the men told neighbours that they had come from the district governor’s office regarding road construction matters. He explained they were newly transferred to the area, having previously been situated in Nan. A neighbour told them that the headman had gone to Pang Khon village and would return in the evening. One of them gave 200 Baht (US) and saying that they would be back the next day asked for some chicken to be prepared for them. After this they returned to their car and drove to Pang Khon village. Near the end of the road, they parked and asked another group of villagers about the Ban Pa Luang headman. At that time, one of the men in the car recognized a man among the villagers and told him, “Don’t you remember me? I tried to arrest you but you fled.” In fact, police had previously detained that villager on drug charges, but he and his associates had managed to escape custody. Ten days after this chance meeting, that villager was reportedly also shot dead. After the group of men in the car parted from the villagers, not long after the sound of repeated gunfire reached Ban Pang Khon from about two kilometres away. Shortly after, villagers saw the car carrying the four men driving away from the scene. When they went to the site, they saw the headman’s car and the six men riddled with bullets. Kiattisak and Bunma, in the driver and passenger seats, had both been shot from behind; the other four men were all dead in the tray of the pickup truck. Police allege Kiattisak was a drug dealer and speculated that ‘a drug ring might be behind the attack”. They were investigating to find out whether the other five victims also had drug links. Kiattisak’s name was on the local blacklist, however some villagers doubt that he was a drug dealer, as he was active in working with the local administration in drug suppression and anti-drug education programmes. Around 15 years ago he had been involved in opium trading, but at that time this was common in the area. In 1995, he was arrested on a charge of being a heroin producer, but after a two-year court case he was found not guilty. He had not been implicated in any drug-related affairs after that. Bunma’s father, Lek Sae Fan, also denied his son had any drug-trafficking history. In other reported cases where victims were shot while returning from drug suppression meetings, in Narathiwat the head of Chanae Hahama Bado subdistrict, 44-year-old Hahama Bado, and his aide, Rapeng Teuramae, were shot while riding home on a motorbike on the night of February 28. Likewise, the 54-year-old head of Mae Tao sub-district, Mae Sot district, Tak, Bunpan Lanoi, was shot in the chest and right shoulder as he was returning from an anti-drug meeting at around 10pm of March 5. He was wounded in his right arm and shoulder, and later admitted to Mae Sot district hospital.

  In another alleged case of “killing to cut the link” 42-year-old Jamnian Nualwilai, a former drug peddler who had turned into a police informant was shot dead in Hinkong sub-district, Muang district, Ratchaburi on February 13. Jamnian was found with four bullet wounds to the head and one in his back. Police said he had 200 methamphetamine pills, 11,000 Baht cash and a mobile phone in his possession. The police say that a drug gang killed him to prevent him betraying them, but Jamnian’s wife ‘Kik’ does not agree. She believes the police killed her husband and made it look as though his old drug gang had done it. Kik said her husband had joined a voluntary government program under which small-time drug traffickers quit and helped authorities with their crackdown. Jamnian joined two years ago and sent in his urine sample every month to prove he was still clean. He even brought other traffickers to the program. Kik did not understand how her husband could be murdered when the police had guaranteed him protection. Five days before the killing, police commended Jamnian for his conduct and told him his name would be removed from the blacklist. “I had not the slightest idea that delisting would end up with my husband being shot dead,” Kik said. “Traffickers would be reluctant to join the program if they had to expose themselves to vengeful acts by drug rings or police. People like my husband would be better off not joining – at least they would not be making themselves sitting ducks. The program application forms are like death warrants,” Kik said. “Gunning someone down will not stop drugs. It is merely a way for officials to glorify their achievements,” she observed. The wife of Jaruk sae Tan also called for authorities to protect – rather than kill – former drug dealers who had given up the illicit business. Jaruk, who had stopped selling drugs more than two years earlier, was shot dead on February 25 while watching television in his restaurant in Muang district, Phuket. During the shooting, a stray bullet injured a four-year-old girl, Suthanma Iamsam-ang, who lives in the neighborhood.

  One characteristic of the killings across the country was that they often occurred in daylight and in the presence of witnesses, despite the killers being “unidentified’. For instance, Bussaporn Pung-am, a 39 year-old woman whom police allege to have been a major methamphetamine dealer, was shot dead in her home in Muang district, Nakhon Pathom, on February 11, while having lunch with two neighbors. Witnesses told police that an “unidentified man” got out of a pickup truck, walked inside the grocery store that is part of the house, and shot Bussaporn five times. Police said they found court documents in a bag in her house showing she had acted as a guarantor for more than 200 drug suspects who had been released on bail. Bussaporn herself was once arrested and released on bail, said the deputy commander of Muang district police station, Lt-Colonel Panlert Tangsriphairoj. Similarly, 37-year-old Sommai Thongmee was killed in his house in Pak Pun sub-district, Muang district, Nakhon Si Thammarat on February 4. His wife, Thippawan, said that three men in a double-cab pickup truck had arrived at their house, asking to see Sommai. The men went inside and talked to her husband, before one of them pulled out a pistol and shot Sommai dead. Police said Sommai was a “major drug dealer” and was on the regional blacklist. On the same day, 30-year-old Yongyuth Jongjit was shot dead by a group of nine “unidentified men” at his pig farm in Kanchanadit district, Surat Thani, in front of his workers. Again, the victim was on the local blacklist and police put the killing down to “killing to cut the link”. Likewise, on March 6 a sub-district municipal councillor was shot dead in his car at the Udon intersection of Mitraphap highway, Muang district, Saraburi, while two passengers and three employees in a nearby shop were wounded. The Thap Kwang sub-district official, 40-year-old Manoj Khamsat, was shot in the face, head, chest, legs and arms when a pickup truck carrying about seven men pulled up alongside and one man opened fire with an M16 rifle. Manoj fired back with a pistol, jumped from the truck and attempted to flee, but was shot down. Police said Manoj was on a blacklist, and the killing may have related to drugs or other illicit businesses. Manoj had earlier survived an attack on February 21 in which his wife was shot.

  The case of 75-year-old Samniang Chusri stands out as an example of how anybody with her name on a blacklist could be a target for execution. Samniang had been called in by village authorities in Koh Plabphla sub-district, Muang district, Ratchaburi and told she was on a blacklist. Officials tried to coerce her to sign a confession, and renounce drug-related activities. One of her daughters had last year been charged with possessing 21 methamphetamine pills, but Samniang insisted that she had nothing to do with it and refused to sign anything. Days later, on February 25, two men arrived on a motorcycle at the front of a neighbouring shop, where Samniang was having a soft drink on the porch. One pressed his hands in supplication and asked for Samniang’s forgiveness before shooting her in the head and chest. Samniang’s daughter, Pranee Fakchin, said that her mother had been blacklisted, and she had repeatedly gone to the police to try to convince them to take her name off. “Police prepared their suspect list on rumours and they didn’t try to get evidence,?Pranee said. “Now my mother had to die as a consequence. This isn’t fair.?Another daughter, Nitaya Poonsak, added, “They should have arrested her and put her in jail—at least then I could have visited her.?

• 26 patiwat // Nov 3, 2006 at 2:20 pm

  Vichai, I don’t believe you. You claim that Thaksin gave greater rewards for extrajudicial killings than for arrests. The only references I’ve seen for this occurring are in several webboard posts that all have exactly the same wording – they appear to have been made by the same person. See here and here.

  Detailed reports by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch make no mention of such a change in regulations. And regulations like that don’t automatically go away when the government is changed. If they really existed, policemen under the military-government would also get paid more for shooting rather than arresting. Vichai, is this true? Can you back it up? Or is this one of those “he worships dead fetuses”-type accusations?

  p.s., “There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do” – That is’t a Thaksin quote, that was a Phao Sriyanon quote. Now there was an evil man. You think Thaksin’s 3-year war on drugs was bad? Phao’s deathsquads were much much worse. Phao didn’t have an Attorney-General or a National Humans Rights Commission to contend with.

  p.p.s., Please don’t think I’m defending Thaksin’s drug war conduct here. Read my earlier posts – I’m not. But throwing false accusations at him does nothing to improve the credibility of your claims.

• 27 nganadeeleg // Nov 3, 2006 at 6:38 pm

  Thank you, Jeru, for the reminder of the events of early 2003 – very disturbing reading.
  It is a timely reminder of just how dangerous and ruthlessThaksin can be.
  Those death squads are reminiscent of another era (over the border).
  Thaksin will need to be closly monitored in future (hopefully he will just count his money and forget about seeking revenge)

• 28 Vichai N // Nov 3, 2006 at 10:33 pm

  Patiwat your wish is my command. Source: http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/86/

  Murder as public policy in Thailand

  Nick Cheesman, Projects Officer, Asian Legal Resource Centre

  Between February and April 2003 the Thai government incited police and public officials to organize and endorse murder in the name of ridding the country of drugs. Through a series of official orders and public statements, the government pushed officials to massively overstep their normal authority. It also set up numerous positive and negative incentives, including promises of financial rewards and promotions, and threats of transfers and dismissals. By May, more than 2000 persons were killed, and the country’s key institutions for the protection of human rights were seriously compromised.

  Administering murder

  On January 28 the Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, set the anti-drug crusade in motion. Prime Minister’s Office Orders 29/2546, 30/2456 and 31/2546, effective from February 1, aimed to combat the enormous drug manufacture, trafficking and use in Thailand “quickly, consistently and permanently”. They ordered the establishment of the National Command Centre for Combating Drugs, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyuth, to oversee the “Concerted Effort of the Nation to Overcome Drugs” campaign. They set out its basic responsibilities, including planning, coordination and reporting, and established an administrative structure and tasks throughout the country. The orders gave the programme the “highest priority”, indicating to officials that they would be closely monitored, and that the government was prepared both to reward high performers and punish laggards. The Prime Minister boosted incentives in two sets of regulations issued on February 11. One of those was the Prime Minister’s Office Regulations on Bonuses and Rewards Relating to Narcotics (No. 3). This document amended two earlier reward regimes, and effectively encouraged the murder of drug suspects by providing grades of bonuses where the most efficient and expedient means for officials to be rewarded was simply to kill the accused:

  Article 18 of the Prime Minister’s Office Regulations on Bonuses and Rewards Relating to Narcotics BE 2537 (1994), which had been amended by the Prime Minister’s Office Regulations on Bonuses and Rewards Relating to Narcotics (No. 2) BE 2540 (1997)… shall be replaced by the following statements:

  “Article 18: The bonus shall be given when officials proceed with a notified case leading to arrest according to the following rules and conditions:
  (1) In a case where both the alleged offender is arrested and the exhibited narcotics are seized, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics does not exceed 1000 Baht, each case shall be paid not exceeding 1000 Baht, after the Public Prosecutor has issued a prosecution order. If the case falls under Section 92 of the Narcotics Control Act BE 2522 (1979) and Section 17 of the Royal Ordinance of the Control on the Use of Volatile Substances BE 2533 (1990), the bonus shall not be paid.
  (2) In a case where the alleged offender is arrested and the exhibited narcotics are seized, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics exceeds 1000 Baht
  (a) In a case where the Public Prosecutor issues a prosecution order, the bonus calculated based on the quantity of narcotics may be paid in half before the Public Prosecutor issues a prosecution order. The remaining amount is to be paid in full when the Public Prosecutor has issued a prosecution order.
  (b) The bonus calculated based on the quantity of narcotics shall be paid only in half if the Public Prosecutor has issued a non-prosecution order, or ceased the proceedings.
  (3) In a case where both the alleged offender is arrested and the exhibited narcotics are seized, but the alleged offender loses his life during the arrest or thereafter, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics exceeds 1000 Baht, the bonus shall be paid according to the quantity of narcotics when the Public Prosecutor has ceased the proceedings.
  (4) In a case where only the exhibited narcotics are seized after the Public Prosecutor has stayed the inquiry, issued a prosecution or non-prosecution order, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics exceeds 1000 Baht, only half of the bonus shall be paid.”
  (Unofficial translation of article 4, italics added to subsection 3)

  At later dates, certain rewards were increased so that, for instance, a state official seizing property that had been purchased with drug money could get up to 40 per cent of its value.

  Public statements enabled and encouraged what was on paper. The Prime Minister consistently portrayed drug dealers as sub-humans deserving to die. He also played down the deaths relative to the apparent successes of the campaign, wondering aloud why the killing of thousands of people who had not yet been proven guilty of any crime should be worthy of public attention or scrutiny. Even in reiterating the official line, that most deaths were just cases of “bad guys killing bad guys”, or “killing to cut the link”, he stated that the government had no responsibility to protect these undesirable citizens. This position, however, was already quite a step-down from remarks he reportedly made to senior government officials from across the country at a meeting in the lead-up to the campaign on January 15. “We have to shoot to kill and confiscate their assets as well, so their sinful inheritance will not be passed on,” he is reported to have said, adding, “We must be brutal enough because drug dealers have been brutal to our children. Today, three million Thai youths are into drugs and 700,000 are deeply addicted. To be cruel to drug dealers is therefore appropriate.” The Prime Minister’s remarks were supported at all levels of government, not least of all by the Interior Minister, Wan Mohamad Noor Matha, who remarked memorably that drug dealers “will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace”. The language used by the Prime Minister and his officials throughout the campaign also sought to evoke a feeling of being at war, such as in a March 2 address when he said, “Don’t be moved by the high death figures. We must be adamant and finish this war… When you go to war and some of your enemies die, you cannot become soft-hearted, otherwise the surviving enemy will return to kill you.” He also referred to drug dealers and their accomplices as “traitors”. Over time, this language found its way into policy documents, such as Prime Minister’s Order No. 60/2546, which states in its preamble that “the ‘Concerted Effort of the Nation to Overcome Drugs’ is specifically regarded as a state of war”.

  Provincial governors and police chiefs were motivated to act according to a strict timetable. Their performance was measured by statistics on drug dealers ‘removed’ from society on a month by month basis, starting with 25 per cent of the total by the end of February, 50 per cent by the of March, and 100 per cent by the end of April. The final figure was later reduced to 75 per cent, and a plan drawn up to deal with the remaining 25 per cent at a more leisurely pace by the King’s birthday in December. Underachieving provinces were announced publicly and senior officials openly threatened with the sack or transfers. Clearly an enormous amount of pressure was applied to meet unreasonable and arbitrary targets. And it was not enough for officials merely to present figures of arrests, convictions and deaths of dealers: they had to target thousands of specific persons, whose names were on lists.

  Watchlists, blacklists, deathlists

  From the start of the campaign, the lists of alleged drug dealers were a source of confusion. There were contradictory stories about how the lists were prepared, how many there were, and the implications of being on one. There appeared at times to be competing lists, and different ways of managing them in different provinces. They seem to have been drawn up from August 2002 by the police, village heads and local administrative bodies under the Interior Ministry, and the Office of the Narcotics Control Board. Whereas the police claim to have relied upon informants and leads, it appears that often they just added names from records of earlier convictions—some going back years. As for the lists prepared by local administrators, reports suggest that in many places the village or subdistrict chiefs simply called public meetings and asked people to inform on persons selling drugs in the neighbourhood, without any further investigation. The Interior Ministry claims that lists were cross-checked before final definitive versions were sent out, however in some places police refused to rely on the Interior Ministry lists after criticism that too many innocent persons were being arrested or killed. Meanwhile, the head of the Narcotics Suppression Bureau, Police Lieutenant General Chalermdej Chomphunuj tried to clarify matters by explaining that there were two types of lists in operation: a ‘blacklist’ of targets for arrest, and a ‘watchlist’ of those “pending investigation”. The police commander suggested that the watchlists were comprised of persons who would be investigated, and not arrested automatically. Only a month into the campaign, however, and there were admissions by senior officials that mistakes had been made on the lists. Around 4000 names were removed from the original 46,000-name watchlist, in response to public complaints. By that time over half of the total victims of the ‘war’ were already dead.

  Whatever the mechanics of the lists, the consequence of being on one was possible death. Although the manner of killings varied across the country, the most commonly described pattern was as follows:
  1. A victim’s name would appear on a list. The list would be made public knowledge, by word of mouth, or other means.
  2. The victim would receive a letter or some other notice instructing her to go to the police station.
  3. At the police station, the victim would be coerced to sign something admitting guilt, or otherwise acknowledge guilt, with promises by the police that her name would be removed from the list.
  4. The victim would be shot on the way home, or within a few days, usually by a group of men in civilian clothes, in daylight and in a public place or at her house, often in front of and without regard to witnesses.
  5. Police would fail to investigate the killing properly, and would concentrate on establishing the victim’s guilt as a drug dealer.

  Although Lieutenant General Chalermdej tried to reassure a nervous public that, “We don’t simply write down the names of drug suspects on a list and go out to terminate them,” the death toll early in the campaign was dramatic. Dozens of people were being killed daily. An anonymous police colonel was reported as having said that his superiors had in fact ordered him to collect information on drug dealers and then kill the informants and track down and kill those named. “Why should we spare the scum?” he was quoted as saying, echoing the Prime Minister’s sentiments. A police station in the north got into the spirit of the campaign by piling a dozen coffins onto its doorstep.

  At the end of February, police in most places had already dealt with their key targets, but were under pressure to continue meeting monthly percentiles imposed on them by Bangkok. Desperate to appear vigilant and keep their jobs, officers began arresting informants or questioning persons with tenuous links to suspects who had already been ‘removed’ from the lists. Persons who had merely participated in drug control programmes were targeted. In some places, ‘complaints boxes’ and anonymous hotlines were set up for people to inform on one another. Police are alleged to have increasingly resorted to planting of evidence and coercion to obtain confessions from suspects.

  One characteristic of the campaign was the lack of police investigations after victims were murdered. Police sometimes excused themselves on the grounds that they needed all their resources to meet the government targets, however the acting director of the Forensic Science Institute, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, doubted these explanations. In mid-February she observed that her agency had resources available to help investigate cases, but the police were not seeking its assistance. Whereas before February the Institute had typically examined one to two extrajudicial killings per day, the number of referrals had since dropped to zero. She said that relatives of those killed had contacted the Institute directly to get help in having the deaths properly investigated, “But not much can be done if the first autopsy is conducted elsewhere and the lethal bullets removed.” Other doctors also reported that they were reluctant to attend the scenes of drug-related shootings as required by law, or record anything that did not verify the police version of events.

  Where police did attend the murder scenes, their investigations and questions were typically directed towards establishing the victims’ guilt, rather than take action to arrest the murderers. For instance, in the case of Somjit Kuanyuyen, instead of collecting evidence the police reportedly interrogated her daughter about her mother’s presumed involvement in the drug trade. Where evidence of drug trading was uncovered, it was also used to justify the murder and effectively close the case. When Bussaporn Pung-am was killed, for instance, police briefed the media on how they found court documents in her house showing she had acted as a guarantor for drug suspects, and added that she had been previously arrested on drug charges. The implication of these remarks, as in so many other cases, was that she deserved to die.

  Another feature of the campaign was the rise and subsequent fall of the death tally. In February, the Interior Ministry published a daily count of arrests, seizures and killings. As attention increasingly focused on the death toll, the government grew uneasy and accused journalists of misrepresenting the tally. By the end of February, public releases of statistics on killings were banned, in response to growing criticism. At the date of the last official tally, on February 26, 1140 persons had been murdered. However, later police did release statistics indicating that to April 16, 2275 persons were killed, 51 by their own agency in “self defence”. By the end of the month the figure was estimated to be around 2400, however by this stage the government was backing away from the statistic, arguing that perhaps half of the murders had been incorrectly recorded.

  The death toll was retracted after the first month partly due to growing international alarm over the number of killings. However, as talk grew of possible United Nations involvement, the Prime Minister reacted with annoyance, as reported in The Nation on February 15:

  Regarding the reported inquiry by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights into Thailand’s current crackdown against drugs, I believe we have nothing to hide. Nothing to worry about… The campaign against drugs will continue, unchanged… The international community owes us an expression of thanks [for reducing the drug trade]. We should not be over-sensitive to what others say. One should put things into perspective. How many policemen have been killed by drug dealers? I lost count of the number of wreaths that I have sent to funerals of policemen killed in the line of duty. Do our critics consider the wretched lives of drug dealers more precious than our policemen’s? Any policemen who kills an innocent person will be prosecuted. Don’t be too self-conscious. Don’t try too hard to live up to international standards. Our country already looks good in the eyes of the international community.

  Whereas the Prime Minister pretended not to care about overseas opinion, his comments and actions betrayed otherwise. He eventually permitted a visit by Hina Jilani, the United Nations Special Representative on human rights defenders. Although the Special Representative spent most of her time on matters unrelated to the anti-drug campaign she did raise her concerns with the Prime Minister and the media. In response the Prime Minister launched a personal attack on the Special Representative, remarking, “She is biased and not acceptable. She made unfair remarks about our country. I complained in a talk with her that if she thought the human rights in Thailand are not up to standard, she should look at other UN members including Pakistan, her mother country.”

  Media and public response

  One of the reasons that the government could effectively get away with murder was the widespread belief, even among its critics, that an overwhelming number of people in Thailand supported the campaign. Tired of seeing drug dealers run rampant across the country, it was said, most were happy to see the government finally do something decisive. The generally accepted view was that the ends justified the means, so long as the persons killed could in fact be considered guilty of a crime. This attitude was captured in a non-government organization’s report on the killing of four ethnic Hmong men, among whom only the village head was thought to be guilty of drug trading:

  The family members of village head don’t want to talk about this case and they could accept the killing because the head of the village did sell drugs and in their opinion he deserved to be punished (killed). But, the relatives of the other 3 could not accept their killing. They believe that this action was from the police and they are very angry the police executed innocent people.

  At the same time, however, as the number of deaths rapidly increased, a wave of fear distorted polls and other means to assess the campaign’s popularity. Whatever the case, whether out of genuine support or intimidation, few people were prepared to come out in opposition to the ‘war’.

  The media response also was problematic. Although daily reporting the latest events, coverage was mostly of comments by officials and chillingly verbatim descriptions of killings as given by police, such as this from the Bangkok Post of February 15:

  Eight people were yesterday gunned down in Nakhon Phanom province in separate incidents, believed to be drug-related. Five of the victims were killed in Si Songkhram, two in Na Kae and one in That Phanom districts.
  In Si Songkhram, Sermsiri Tamonnin, 34, the first victim, was found dead in her house in tambon Ban Uang at 6am. She had been shot in the head and body.
  Thien Mokmeechai, 46, was gunned down in his house in tambon Phon Sawang at 6.30am. Witnesses said a man came on a motorcycle, walked into the house and opened fire at Thien.
  At about the same time, Amporn Phiewkham, 43, was shot dead at his house in tambon Tha Bo.
  Vinai Nakajat, 40, was killed by an assailant in tambon Sam Phong.
  In tambon Hat Phaeng, Sompong Promson, 49, was shot at by gunmen while eating inside his house.
  In That Phanom district, Suriya Thong-on was gunned down in front of his house in tambon Na Thon.
  Killed in their home in Na Kae district about noon were Thanomsak Moonsurin, 40, and his wife Chalaolak, 39.
  Nakhon Phanom police chief Pol Maj-Gen Paiboon Phetplai said all of those killed were on record as having been involved in the drug trade.

  Media and public concern was restricted to the suffering of obvious innocents, rather than the practice of murder as public policy. An exemplary case was when police shot nine-year-old Chakraphan Srisa-ard in his family’s car, as his mother sped away. Had the child not been in the car, it would have been another simple affair of a dead drug dealer for the police to file away. Unfortunately for the officers involved, the young boy’s death aroused national ire, and somehow the need for justice in this one case overrode everything else that happened across these three months. The media also focused on the hardships endured by relatives of victims after their deaths. A May 28 article in The Nation, for instance, reported on the families of the four Hmong men mentioned above:

  Somchai Sae Thao’s death has left his wife “Yeng” and their seven children in a distressing situation. The heritage left to them by his death is an uncertain future. As she contemplated her fate, Yeng dropped her eyes to her swelling stomach—a new baby is due soon but it will have no father to provide food and sustenance. Her 15-year-old eldest son is the family’s only hope now. Every day, the boy goes to ask his neighbours whether they want him to work on their farm. Some days the boy is able to return home with something for the family—other days his mother and younger sisters and brothers get nothing to eat.

  The media narrowed its reporting onthe campaign in part due to overt and covert government threats. As Chaiyan Rajchagool, a lecturer in Social Science at Chiang Mai University noted, “No one objects to drug suppression. But if you raise questions, you can be blamed as someone who supports the drug dealers.” This was apparent when the Defense Minister responded to newspaper criticism by suggesting that journalists were in drug dealers’ pockets. Additionally, the Prime Minister is himself a media and communications tycoon whose influence and financial power can be used subtly in many ways, as Senator Mareerath Kaewkar noted, remarking that for a newspaper or magazine, “One criticism too many could cost millions of Baht in withdrawn advertising.”

  The media’s inability to come to terms with the extent and depth of the crisis has left a hole where there used to be public debate in Thailand. Whereas television discussion forums had in recent years become places for lively exchange, with diverse opinions, analysis, and large audiences, now these are gone. The public space for dissent has been markedly reduced. Critics of government actions are restricted to seminars in universities or small gatherings of non-government organizations. Even in these forums, speakers may attack individuals or their actions, but are reluctant to address questions of policy. According to Mark Tamthai, a retired philosophy professor and consultant to the National Security Council, “There is no place in Thailand now where you can publicly study the consequences of government policies.”

  Role of the National Human Rights Commission

  The position of the National Human Rights Commission has been seriously compromised by the anti-drugs campaign. The Commission, which was only established in 1999, was effectively silenced by the government, and has been unable to excite the public in defence of the principles it represents.

  From the beginning, the Commission received relatively few complaints, and most of those were from persons objecting to their names being on a list, not families of murder victims. The Commission did respond to the complaints it received and followed-up on them with the relevant authorities, resulting in amendments to lists made later. However, even this relatively small number of complaints stretched its resources, and it was restricted to dealing with individual cases rather than seriously addressing systemic problems.

  The real difficulties for the Commission began when the government attacked one of its members, Professor Pradit Charoenthaithawee, for reporting on the extrajudicial killings during a UN meeting he attended overseas. After returning to Thailand, Professor Pradit received death threats, and calls for his impeachment. In a national radio address, the Prime Minister launched a personal attack on Professor Pradit, and accused him of overstepping his authority as a human rights commissioner. “Let us deal with the UN, because that is our job. Those who are not responsible for such duties should keep away,” the Prime Minister said. General Panlop Pinmanee, deputy chief of the Internal Security Operations Command, accused Professor Pradit of being an ally of drug dealers. As a result, the Commission was forced onto the back foot, and spent its time defending its mandate and the reputations of its members, rather than addressing the crisis directly. The Chairman of the Commission, Professor Saneh Chamarik, was obliged to announce that in principle the Commission supported the government’s drug suppression policies, so long as in practice they did not violate human rights and the country’s Constitution. His conciliatory approach, however, was not responded to favourably by the Prime Minister, who later refused to meet with the commissioners.

  Responding to criticism about his management of the campaign, rather than engage the National Human Rights Commission, the Prime Minister opted for another approach. He set up committees to report directly to him, thereby sidelining the country’s permanent national human rights institution. In two orders of February 28, the Prime Minister established the Committee to Examine the Performance of Competent Narcotics Law Enforcement Officials in Drug Suppression and, the Committee to Monitor the Protection of Informants and Witnesses in Drug Suppression. “I expect the two committees to ensure the rule of law and fairness in the anti-drug campaign,” the Prime Minister said. “Critics of the campaign should now direct their empathy to our children who are victims of the drug menace, instead of sounding the alarm for falling traffickers.” The first committee sought police and public cooperation in investigating killings, and whether police had followed procedures in making reports, researching crimes and performing autopsies. However, in April the Deputy Attorney General responsible for overseeing the work complained that the committee had not yet received a single report from the police, let alone clear figures on the number of the cases to investigate. In response, police claimed that they hadn’t received any requests for reports. Meanwhile, the committee also failed to draw any response from a silent and intimidated public, despite appeals for victims to come forward.

  The aftermath

  On May 1 the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra declared the ‘war on drugs’ a success and immediately launched his newest war, against rather more nebulous “dark influences”. Within a few days, local authorities in Mae Sot district, Tak, had summarily executed six Burmese migrant labourers, under the impression that they could now ‘remove’ whatever target suited them. Meanwhile, the ‘war on drugs’ is set to continue throughout the year, albeit more low-key; the Prime Minister, it seems, has not tired of the fight.

  The anti-drug campaign may have temporarily stemmed the flow and consumption of amphetamines throughout Thailand, but the damage to its institutions will be much more enduring, among them, the parliament, judiciary, police and media. Thailand now has a Prime Minister, a legislative head, who is acting like the head of the executive. It has a police force and government that are complicit in mass murder and have learnt that performance is tied to the payment of commissions. It has a cowed and submissive bureaucracy, and a diminished media.

  Above all, a widespread attitude apparently exists that certain types of criminals should simply be shot dead. If this mentality prevails, there is little hope of maintaining an effectively functioning judicial system, as the presumption will be that courts and their procedures can be bypassed or done away with altogether when convenient. In neighbouring Cambodia, where the legal system is still barely operational ten years after the United Nations completed its tenure, alleged motorcycle thieves are beaten to death on the streets rather than it being left to the state to mete out justice. By comparison, what has happened in Thailand this year, where there is an established legal system, is far worse. The killings of alleged drug dealers were organized and approved by decree. The perception that a particular category of persons could be gunned down in their houses and cars was officially approved. The sidestepping of due process was authorized by the state. When clearly innocent people were listed or killed, the state was resented, but so long as the majority of victims were successfully portrayed as guilty, the state proclaimed overwhelming approval. The real challenge for human rights defenders in Thailand, then, lies not in fighting for the rights of the innocent, but rather in fighting for the rights of the guilty.

  Posted on 2003-09-05
  Back to [Vol. 02 - No. 03 June 2003 -- Special report: Extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in Thailand]

  Asian Legal Resource Centre

• 29 James Haughton // Nov 3, 2006 at 10:56 pm

  “Strengthening local communities to manage their own affairs regarding economic, social, cultural and administrative matters, environment management and community rights.”

  Is this intended to replace article 46?

• 30 Vichai N // Nov 4, 2006 at 3:02 am

  Almost all those killed during Thaksin’s extrajudicials were innocent . . and I mean innocent in the sense that those killed were not drug traffickers at all! Read on below (Source: Bangkok Post Sept-18/2006)

  Most drug war victims ‘INNOCENT’
  NHRC investigations clear alleged criminals

  Almost all those killed during the Thaksin Shinawatra government’s war on drugs were innocent people, if cases investigated by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) are an indication.

  Wasant Panich, head of the NHRC probe panel into extra-judicial killings, yesterday said his agency received about 40 complaints from relatives of people killed in the drug war and most of the cases were cleared of drug trafficking.

  He said police simply close the cases after one year without proper investigation. Mr Wasant cited a case in Tak’s Mae Sot district where a couple who owned a truck company were shot dead. He said before they were killed, one of their trucks was seized for carrying loads exceeding the legal limit. The two went to the police station to settle the matter with the officers with no success. On their way home, they were gunned down in their car. Drugs were found in their shoes, Mr Wasant said, adding police also seized their belongings and put them up for auction.

  Mr Wasant said it was nonsense to believe the couple would bring drugs to a meeting with police.

  Another case involved four hilltribe people who were arrested for illegal firearms possession. The four were summoned to report to police and were shot dead in their vehicle which was later stolen. Police closed the case a year later without properly investigating it, he said.

  In Lampang’s Mae Mo district, a candidate for tambon administration organisation post was killed after he admitted he once took drugs, said Mr Wasant.

  In another case, police claimed to find drug pills in the underpants of a man who died of natural causes at a hospital.

  However, police claims were disproved because before that doctors had X-rayed the body, and no drugs were hidden as claimed, said Mr Wasant.

  He said the NHRC had long ago submitted its findings to the government, but it seems they were ignored, he said.

  Pradit Charoenthaitawee, an NHRC commissioner, said information on the extra-judicial killings in the NHRC database remained inadequate because family members of those killed were afraid to come forward with information.

  Dr Pradit said while a drug crackdown was necessary, extra-judicial killings were not a proper approach.

  “Mr Thaksin has committed a lot of sins [in ordering extra-judicial killings]. Now, they have spill-over effects which are coming in the form of natural disasters, like drought and flooding,” Mr Pradit said.

  Dr Pradit said only minnows were busted but drug kingpins remain at large.

  He said there are two separate lists of drug pushers. A district chief takes charge of a list which includes ordinary people. Police use a separate list to blackmail and destroy their enemies, Dr Pradit said.

• 31 jeru // Nov 4, 2006 at 3:52 am

  Patiwat – Vichai did not make it up. In a speech at Ratchapat Suandusit Hall, Bangkok, January 14, 2003 announcing the (anti ya ba) campaign, the Prime Minister borrowed a quote from a former police chief known for having orchestrated political assassinations in the 1950s: “There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do,” he says. “Because drug traders are ruthless to our children, so being ruthless back to them is not a bad thing. . . . It may be necessary to have casualties. . . . If there are deaths among traders, it’s normal.”

  http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/thaila9013.htm

• 32 patiwat // Nov 4, 2006 at 7:04 am

  Vichai, thanks for the source article. That is indeed troubling. Even more troubling is the fact that, as far as I know, that Article 18 has not be amended or removed by the Surayud-government.

  Jeru, I wasn’t implying that Thaksin never said quote about the Thai police. I was saying that it was originally said by Phao Sriyanon 40 years ago, and has been repeated numerous times by hundreds of public figures since then, all in pretty much the same context – to justify police power in influence.

  I’m not sure I believe that Bangkok Post article about nearly all the dead not being drug traffickers. Of the 2,500 dead, the NHRC investigated only 40. That seems like a very poor self-selected sample to make any inferences on all the people who died during the drug war. Why not look at the Attorney General, who was assigned to investigate all extrajudicial deaths during that period? That would eliminate the NHRC’s self-selection bias.

• 33 Vichai N. // Nov 5, 2006 at 12:26 am

  I am directing this question to Bangkok Pundit.

  Pundit . . after reading everything above (there are gruesome reports about the extrajudicials by merely googling) about Thaksin’s extrajudicial murderous rampage in Y2003, can you even begin to justify this patently despicable man Thaksin Shinawatra ever even leading Thailand again?

  And on a purely personal judgement Pundit (forget whether or not the junta or PM Surayud’s government will prosecute Thaksin for the extrajudicials), do you or do you not believe that Thaksin violated the rule of law, Thaksin MURDERED, and he deserved to be jailed for the senseless extrajudicial slaughter of thousands of villagers?

  Patiwat, jeru, James Haughton, nganadeeleg, et al are welcome to submit their judgement of Thaksin Shinawatra on the extrajudicial murders.

• 34 jeru // Nov 5, 2006 at 3:17 pm

  Thaksin had no cause to cause the death of thousands of villagers suspected of ya ba trafficking. It was madness.

  Thaksin clearly deserve to be judicially prosecuted for this particular abuse of the constitutional rule of law . . as a murderer.

• 35 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 5, 2006 at 4:38 pm

  Vichai: I note you haven’t answered my questions in #19, but you are posing questions for me to answer.

  Did Thaksin murder anyone as you say he did?

  I have already stated that:”However, if the police killed someone and they have no defence to the killing then I am against this and have no problem with any prosecution.” Do you know though what percentage of the people who died were killed by the police?

  Your hyperbole gets ahead of you.

• 36 nganadeeleg // Nov 5, 2006 at 7:45 pm

  It does not matter whether Thasksin pulled the trigger or not.
  The war on drugs was a Thaksin policy and the murders happened as part of that policy.
  Did Saddam, Pol Pol, Hitler etc personally kill all of their victims?

  The fact that Thaksin implemented such a policy (and did not reign in the extra judicial killings as soon as it became apparent that they were happening) makes him responsible.

  This episode highlights how ruthless Thaksin is, and shows why the coup leaders are still very worried about him.

• 37 Vichai N // Nov 5, 2006 at 10:36 pm

  Bangkok Pundit – 2,500 innocent defenseless villagers slaughtered by specific orders of Thaksin Shinawatra in that senseless Y2003 anti-ya ba campaign and on form Pundit you cannot bring yourself to condemn Thaksin Shinawatra. That was MASS MURDER Pundit! There was absolutely no justiication to murder those villagers, and to be ordered and directed by Thailand’s Prime Mnister Thaksin Shinawatra himself make the crimes more horrific and abhorrent! And yet Bangkok Pundit will NOT condemn Thaksin Shinawatra.

  Bangkok Pundit if you will condone Thaksin Shinawatra for his murders, you will condone anything else that Thaksin had inflicted upon the Thai people. You even try to diminish Thaksin’s culpability in those murders. And I suspect Bangkok Pundit, if Thaksin Shinawatra asked you to, you will even be willing to bury those murdered to cover up for his crimes.

  About your questions (#19) nganadeeleg already explained that HMK Bhumibhol certainly disapproved of the extrajudicial murders and I won’t even have to google on this because it just does NOT make sense that HMK Bhumibhol would condone mass murders of his loyal subjects.

  About your question on whether General Sonthi’s coup was within the rule of law? But of course not and that answer should have been obvious. But was General Sonthi’s coup justified? – Yes it was.

• 38 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 6, 2006 at 12:12 am

  Vichai: You state that Thaksin killed 2500 people, but HM the King said in reference to the 2500 number that “[m]ost of them were killed by their accomplices”. So who is correct, you or HM the King? I am questioning the numbers you are citing.

  I have already repeatedly stated that I am against the killing of people by the police when it is not in self-defence. I have no problem with any such person being prosecuted. What is not clear about this?

  Since you say that the coup was justified and not within the “rule of law”, does this mean you are for the “rule of law” in some cases and not for others? Or does that mean you were simply for the rule of law before you were against it? So the ends justifies the means. I am sure anyone who shot a drug dealer would make the same argument that it was not within the “rule of law” to kill the person, but it is still “justified”.

• 39 sick of this // Nov 6, 2006 at 7:02 am

  They were drug dealers. Worse than murderers. They deserved to die.

  That article said they many were shot immediately after giving evidence incriminating their drug dealer friends. I think they were killed by their fellow drug dealers.

• 40 nganadeeleg // Nov 6, 2006 at 8:12 am

  Basically Thaksin allowed a 3 month period of rampant killing where eveyone caught up in the killing was labelled a drug dealer.

  To Pundit & Sick – think youselves lucky you were not on the list (hit list)

• 41 Vichai N // Nov 6, 2006 at 1:06 pm

  Ahhhh …Pundit your lame attempts to remain naive about Thaksin’s extrajudicial slaughter of thousands of Thai villagers begin to annoy.

  HMK I believed was utterly horrified at the thousands killed during Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage and at the international outrage that followed. Thaksin reported to HMK that “many” were killed by drug dealers fighting among themselves. And HMK in his Dec/03 speech repeated I believe ,with some tone of sarcasm, what Thaksin reported but demanded in the same breath that Thaksin should investigate reported extrajudicial police killings alleged by human rights groups. BUT NO INVESTIGATION FOLLOWED and to this date those extrajudicial killings have not been investigated.

  But of course the coup was justiied Bangkok Pundit! We are removing an extrajudicial mass murderer. Thaksin was fomenting division and provoking civil disorder in his attempts to cling to power. Thaksin had completely subverted constitutional checks & balances. Thailand was mired in deep constitutional mess following the Apr2nd election later on judicially ruled as illegal. AND THAKSIN was intent to cling on to power indefinitely and was most likely on the point of doing a Ferdinand Marcos on Thailand (his own coup) but was thwarted by General Sonthi’s timely coup.

  So don’t wonder Pundit why General Sonthi’s coup was approved by the majority of the Thai population.

• 42 patiwat // Nov 6, 2006 at 2:44 pm

  Vichai, it’s OK if you insist on deluding yourself, but stop spreading lies. The office of the attorney general investigated the extrajudicial killings. Since there were over 2,000 cases, their work was slow, just like the junta’s investigative work. But INVESTIGATIONS DID FOLLOW.

  It’s OK for you to “believe” that the King was “horrified.” If you insist on deluding yourself, there’s nothing I can do about it. But these aren’t my words, they are the Kings: “ไอ้การชัยชนะ ของการปราบ ไอ้ยา​เสพติดนี่​ ​ดีที่ปราบ​ ​แล้ว​ก็ที่​เขา​ตำ​หนิบอกว่า​ ​​เอ้ย​ คนตาย​ ​ตั้ง​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​คน​ ​อะ​ไรนั่น… ​เรื่อง​เล็ก​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​คน​ ​ถ้า​นายกฯ​ ​ไม่​ได้​ทำ​ ​นายกฯ​ ​ไม่​ได้​ทำ​ ​ทุกปี​ ​ๆ​ ​จด​ไว้​นะ​ ​มีมากกว่า​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​คนที่ตาย​ ​ที่ตาย​ทั้ง​คนที่​เสพติด​ ​แล้ว​ก็ขึ้นไป​ ​ฆ่าคน​ ​หรือ​ทำ​อะ​ไร​ ​เผาอะ​ไรต่าง​ ​ๆ​ ​รวม​ทั้ง​เจ้าหน้าที่ที่​ต้อง​ไปปราบปกติ​ ​ก็ตายมากเหมือน​กัน​ ​แต่​ไม่​พูด​เท่า​นั้น​เอง​ ​ไม่​ไปนับ​…….

  แล้ว​ที่บอก​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​คน​ ​นี่ ก็​ไม่​เชื่อ ​ ​มีมากกว่า​ ​ที่​เขา​ตายแต่​เรา​ไม่​รู้​ ​แล้ว​ก็พวกที่ทางเจ้าหน้าที่​ได้​สังหาร​ ​ไม่​ใช่​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​นี่​เขา​สังหาร​กัน​เอง​ ​แล้ว​นี่​เรา​จะ​รับผิดชอบ​ได้​อย่างไร​ ​เขา​ด่าว่า​ ​นายกฯ​ ​ทำ​สงคราม​ ​ทำ​ให้​คนตาย​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​คน​ ​ความ​จริง​ไม่​ใช่​อย่าง​นั้น​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​คน​ ​มันหมด​ทั้ง​หมด​ ​เขา​นับแต่ว่า​ ​พวกที่ตาย​เป็น​ส่วน​ใหญ่​ ​เป็น​พวกที่​เขา​ฆ่า​กัน​เอง​ ​พวกที่ค้า​ ​พวกที่ผลิต​ ​เขา​ฆ่า​กัน​เอง​​จำ​นวนมาก​ ​ที่ทางราชการ​จะ​รับผิดชอบ​ ​ก็อาจ​จะ​มีจำ​นวนหนึ่ง​ ​ก็ลองถามทาง​ผู้​บัญชาการตำ​รวจแห่งชาติ​ ​ไปแยก​ ​จำ​แนก​เป็น​เท่า​ไร​ ​ก็​เชื่อว่า​ใน​ ๒,๕๐๐ ​นี่​ ​มากที่​เขา​ฆ่า​กัน​เอง​ ​แล้ว​ก็​ความ​ผิดของ​เขา​ ​มา​โยน​ความ​ผิด​ให้​ท่านซู​เปอร์นายกฯ”

  It wasn’t just the King that condoned Thaksin approach. A poll conducted in February 2003 revealed 92% of respondents backed Thaksin’s “ruthless” approach.

  Of course, that doesn’t make Thaksin’s approach correct, or moral, or even legal. But by portraying it as something it was not, Vichai, you’re deluding yourself.

• 43 Frustrated // Nov 6, 2006 at 6:09 pm

  To Khun Vichai N,

  Your words
  “So don’t wonder Pundit why General Sonthi’s coup was approved by the majority of the Thai population whom their expressions have not been suppressed by the coup’s martial laws ” you seem to omit the last phrase.

  It appears to me that the king in your view was very naïve on this matter and he basically believed what Thaksin reported. Where were his advisors? Where were all the super privy councillors? The sarcastic tone in his speech that you mentioned was absolutely not against the government’s war on drugs but aimed at the people who oppose that policy. Abusive behaviours of any kind must not be tolerated in this country or anywhere else on earth, no matter whether they come from royals or others. Abusive people should be punished if proven guilty. Every life is important, whether it be 2500 lives or 65 million lives, there should be justice for all. The Junta and people who support the abuse of 65 million Thai should be brought to justice. It is obvious that what they are doing is not in the interest of Thailand even though a few Thai may like and support what they are doing because of self interest or stupidity. If you can’t tolerate abusive behaviour of some policemen during the war on drugs policy of the elected government, how can you tolerate global abusive policies by the junta?

• 44 Vichai N // Nov 6, 2006 at 11:02 pm

  Patiwat/Paundit: Who are deluding themselves about the extrajudicials?

  —————-
  In a December 4, 2003 television and radio broadcast, King Bhumibol stated: “I have to say this because the Prime Minister announced victory yesterday . . . . I know the Prime Minster does not like warnings, because warnings can be irritating . . . . As for the criticism of the 2500 deaths . . . who will take responsibility . . . ? The Prime Minister was denounced for waging war and causing 2500 deaths . . . . Most deaths were killings between drug producers and traffickers themselves, yet there may be a certain number which officials are
  responsible for. Try asking the Police Chief to specify how many . . . . Then announce, so the [Thai] people will know, so foreigners will know . . . . ” Excerpt from the remarks of H.M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej, December 4, 2003.

  ———————-
  The first day of the campaign, February 1, saw four killings. By February 5, six people had been shot dead, and a week later the death toll stood at eighty-seven. Fifteen days into the campaign, the Interior Ministry announced that 596 people had been shot dead since February 1, eight of them by police “in self-defense.”

  The deaths of alleged drug dealers, both those killed by police and those killed by others, were included in a February 17 report of the Ministry of the Interior informing the government about the progress of the campaign. The government actively publicized the deaths on state-controlled television and radio as well as in newspapers, claiming that drug dealers were killing their peers to prevent them from leaking information to authorities.

  The police’s unwillingness to investigate these deaths, combined with the unusually high
  number of drug-related homicides compared to years past, cast doubt on the credibility of the government’s story. Medical professionals complained that they were not being allowed to perform autopsies and that bullets were being removed from victims.

  The head of Thailand’s Forensic Sciences Institute noted that, unlike before the war on drugs, the police were not seeking the Institute’s help in differentiating so-called gangland killings from extrajudicial executions.

  On February 24, 2003, just over three weeks into the drug war, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Asma Jahangir, expressed “deep concern at reports of more than 100 deaths in Thailand in connection
  with a crackdown on the drug trade.”

  In fact, Thailand’s Interior Ministry had the day
  before reported the deaths of 993 suspects, 977 of which they attributed to “gangland killings.”

  Jahangir called for strict limits on the use of lethal force by police, consistent with international law, as well as prompt, transparent, and independent investigations into each individual death. Prime Minister Thaksin retorted, “Do not worry about this.
  The U.N. is not my father. We as a U.N. member must follow international regulations. Do not ask too much. There is no problem. They can come and investigate.”

  Human Rights Commissioner Pradit Chareonthaitawee spoke out against the drug war,
  saying, “People are living in fear all over the kingdom.” But when Pradit presented cases
  of human rights violations to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in February 2003, Thaksin called his behavior “ugly” and “sickening” and questioned his authority to communicate with the United Nations.

  Pradit received threats of impeachment by a spokesman of the ruling Thai Rak Thai party as well as anonymous telephone calls on March 5 and 6 telling him to “stop speaking to the United
  Nations or die.”

  Throughout the drug war, government agencies charged with investigating extrajudicial killings and other human rights abuses lacked either the independence or the capacity to carry out full and impartial investigations. According to a March 3, 2003 fact sheet on the war on drugs prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Thai government on
  February 28, 2003, appointed two committees to monitor the implementation of its narcotics policy. The first, chaired by the secretary-general of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board, Police Lieutenant General Chidchai Vanasathidya, was
  assigned to monitor police conduct during the drug war. The second, chaired by
  Attorney General Wichian Wiriyaprasit, was responsible for protecting informants,
  witnesses, and those who turned themselves in to the authorities. The fact sheet contained guidelines for investigating extrajudicial killings and stated that “in discharging their duties, law enforcement officials have been instructed to strictly observe the provision of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the use of lethal force only for self-defense.”

  By April 1, 2003, with over 1,000 people dead, the Royal Thai Police had not forwarded any reports to the Attorney General’s investigating committee. The committee had requested that all reports be sent by the previous March 28. It was only on April 28, by
  which time close to 2,000 people had been killed, that the police sent information to the committee. The committee proceeded to establish ten subcommittees to investigate the deaths. In November 2003, Amnesty International reported that “it appears that in most cases investigations have not been completed and that therefore no one has been found responsible for the killings or brought to justice.”

  Amnesty International was not able at that time to obtain specific information about the progress of investigations.

  TO MAKE LONG STORY SHORT – THE POLICE INVESTIGATED THEMSELVES, THEY TOOK THEIR TIME INVESTIGATING AND SAT ON THE INVESTIGATION . .. .. ZZZZZZZ

• 45 Vichai N // Nov 6, 2006 at 11:51 pm

  To Frustrated . . . don’t be!

  At its simplest . . Thaksin as Prime Minister was a monster who won’t go! He murdered thousands (extrajudicial killings Y2003) just to show he can be above the constitution. He went on a corruption spree that academics estimated costed Thailand at least Baht 400 billion . . which went to the pockets of Thaksin and his cronies. And Thaksin won’t accept to be accountable as demanded by constitutional ethiquette. Conflicts of interest in family business transactions in that Shin-Temasek deal, and still Thakin won’t submit to asset/corruption scrutiny of any kind. Thaksin’s Ineptitude worsened the Southern situation and muslim discontent. More ominously, Thaksin was then dividing the Kingdom in a dangerous game of ptting the rurals against the urbans as he clung on to power.

  In short this abusive man Thaksin Shinawatra had lost his mandate to rule . . and even that Apr2nd election he called specifically to evade scrutiny was later on ruled illegal and plunged the Kingdom to a constitutional mess.

  Thaksin clearly won’t go . . he had to protect his illgottens and the many crimes committed during his rule.

  General Sonthi had to do his patriotic duty to save the nation. The End.
  —–
  But take heart Frustrated: Whereas Thaksin was intent on demonstrating his extrajudicial powers to kill thousands, the junta under General Sonthi had taken every precautions to prevent any false arrest or extrajudicial abuse.

  No wonder the people of Thailand applauds General Sonthi the Saviour and condemned Thaksin the Extrajudicial Executioner.

• 46 Thanakarn // Nov 7, 2006 at 2:37 am

  Am I too late to joint in the fray?
  I have been reading the arguments/posters in this thread nearly daily. And one fact strike out that everybody seem to miss out. I wondered why there was not one drug lord reported killed during Thaksin’s Y2003 anti-drugs campaign. The only ones killed where mainly innocent villagers or small-time ya ba runners or addicts.

  My guesses:
  (1) The drug lords were the police mafia itself . .and the police-hicks were just killing any small time unknowns to collect Thaksin’s bounty; or

  (2) The drug lords are known to the police and the whole anti-drugs campaign was merely to shake down these drug lords for big bucks . . money going into the crooked police/TRT kitty; or

  (3) The Police Department are just made up of a bunch of crooked inepts and idiots who have no clue at all who the drug lords are . . but they have to meet the body count quota demanded by Thaksin and just blacklisted and shot any one who looked suspicious; or

  (4) All of the above

• 47 polo // Nov 7, 2006 at 9:44 am

  The issue is also, why did so few prominent Thai people — almost nobody, actually — speak out at the time about the killings? Good for Dr Pradit, but who else?

• 48 sport // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:41 pm

  Polo, they were too busy applauding Thaksin… Don’t forget, the drug war was amazingly popular. 92% supported Thaksin’s approach, an unprecedented percentage.

  Only the families of the drug dealers were angry, and they were afraid of getting killed in the cross-fire.

• 49 jeru // Nov 7, 2006 at 2:51 pm

  polo/sport – That makes it even more despicable. Just the like Roman gladiator show . . people cheering for blood and Thaksin the emperor-wannabe providing the bloody entertainment.

  But the more likely explanation was that Thaksin completely controlled the media at that time . . painting only the nice picture show of his anti-drug successes and quashing news about the innocents (nearly all killed were innocents) slaughtered.

• 50 sport // Nov 7, 2006 at 6:49 pm

  jeru, the most horrible thing is that the King, who had an unfiltered view of what was going on, was cheering Thaksin on as well. Just read his comments, untranslated in Thai in post no. 42.

  I can only conclude that the King was cheering on the murder of innocents, or that his intel was telling him that most of the dead were actually drug dealers.

• 51 Vichai N // Nov 7, 2006 at 8:37 pm

  Sport – If the King was cheering Thaksin, the King would not have pointedly scolded him in his Dec/2003 speech televised all over Thailand. It is ridiculous and absolutely disrespectful to suggest that HMK would condone extrajudicial killings that violated the rule of law.

  But the what the heck . . . extrajudicial devotee scums will believe anything . . even that they did the country a favour. But did they? All they did was slaughter 2,500 innocent lives who were not even drug lords but at most were small time runners or addicts.

  Sport, whenever I hear anyone arguing for extrajudicial measures, I feel this strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. Extrajudicial killlings is evil. No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency, not even the Prime Minister of Thailand.

• 52 jeru // Nov 7, 2006 at 10:02 pm

  Sport you are so inappropriately named. Those poor 2,500 villagers extrajudicially murdered by Thaksin were not given any SPORTING chance at all. They were not read their rights, they were not allowed to defend themselves in a court of laws, and they surely did not deserve to be shot right between their eyes just because Thaksin Shinawatra had a whim to bloody thousands for his macho show.

  All the King suggested to the then PM Thaksin in Dec/2002 was that he address Thailand’s amphethamine abuse problems. But the extrajudicial killings, which clearly violated constitutional rule of laws, was Thaksin Shinawatra’s idea alone and nobody else’s; and no one, certainly not the King, obliged him to slaughter thousands of innocents in that horrible Y2003 anti-drugs campaign. You disrespect Thailand’s highest institution by your blatant lie that the Thai King condoned extrajudicial murder of his subjects.

  A very serious crime, mass extrajudicial murder of thousands of innocents in violation of rule of law, was committed. That is all we have to remember when we condemn this despicable horrible man Thaksin Shinawatra as a mass murdering Thai criminal.

• 53 sport // Nov 7, 2006 at 10:19 pm

  Vichai, can you read Thai? Someone posted the text of the King’s 2003 speech up earlier, and the King never scolded Thaksin – he praised him!

  If you can’t read Thai, let me translate some of the highlights: “It’s good that we won the war against drugs. Those guys (Vichai, he’s talking to you!) that have been so critical and sayed ‘2,500 people died!’, well that’s nonsense. If the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it! Jot this down, alright? Every year more than 2,500 people die due to drugs. People are killed from taking drugs, people on drugs kill other people and burn things up, and they kill government officials as well. Those people die too. But why doesn’t anybody ever talk about them? As for that 2,500 numnber, I don’t believe it. Those drug dealers killed themselves – how can we be held responsible for that?”

  Let me summarize that, in case the King’s informal style gets in the way of easy comprehension:
  – 2,500 dead is nothing compared to those innocents who would have died if we didn’t have a war on drugs
  – Most of the 2,500 dead weren’t killed by the police – they were killed by their fellow drug dealers

  He wasn’t being sarcastic. He was belittling bleeding heart drug-dealer sympathisers (relatives?) people like you, Vichai. If you love drug dealers so much, you should move to Columbia or Afghanistan.

• 54 Vichai N. // Nov 8, 2006 at 1:06 am

  I better post how the King’s Dec2003 speech should be translated lest people get deceived by Pundit/Patiwat/Sport that Thailand’s King condoned Thaksin’s murder of the innocents. Here is my translation:

  “Victory in the war on drugs is good. People may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. The lives of many officials are lost in working to bring the drug trade under control. These figures are often not counted, but it could be as high as the number of victims in the war on drugs. There may be only a few deaths for which authorities must be held responsible, so we have to classify those who were killed by fellow dealers, buyers and addicts, and those killed by authorities.”

  Now when you read above, you must read in the context that the Police Chief, the Interior Minister and the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra were all reporting to the Thai King that MOST of the killings were carried out by drug dealers against drug dealers themselves. HMK had to take these reports at face value . . . pending investigations. Hence HMK’s caveat: “There may be only a few deaths for which authorities must be held responsible, so we have to classify those who were killed by fellow dealers, buyers and addicts, and those killed by authorities.”

  Come on . . . the mass murder of thousands of innocents were Thaksin’s inspiration to distract the village masses while he corrupts and he rifles the country’s treasury.

  The King of Thailand would NEVER condone the murder of thousands of innocents, and, people who suggest otherwise are blatant liars and filled with malice to malign the monarchy, them being pro-Thaksin, in their spite to protect their malevolent hero Thaksin Shinawatra who had been completely dishonored the Kingdom of Thailand and failed the Thai people, and its most revered King Bhumibhol.

• 55 patiwat // Nov 8, 2006 at 4:22 am

  Vichai, now you’ve gone too far. It was unfortunate but inevitable for you to incorrectly claim that I supported Thaksin or that I was a liar.

  But it is not OK for you to claim that I have bad intentions towards the King. That’s slander. Read my posts. I was quoting the King and noting what anybody reasonable person would note: that the King was not condemning Thaksin for his conduct in the war against drugs. Vichai, that does not mean that I have bad intentions towards the King.

• 56 New Mandala » War on “war on drugs” // Nov 8, 2006 at 12:07 pm

  [...] Over the past few weeks there has been a vigorous debate going on among New Mandala readers about the Thaksin’s government’s so called “war on drugs” (much of it in the 55 comments to this post). We welcome the debate on this crucially important issue. But there has been a significant amount of repetition in many of the recent posts. In particular, various perspectives on the king’s views on the matter have been widely and thoroughly canvassed. Other readers now have, I think, more than enough information to make up their own minds on what the king did, or did not, say. Further comments on the “war on drugs” are encouraged. But we are looking for original contributions that provide new perspectives and insights into this crucially important issue. Re-statements of well rehearsed arguments are likely to fall foul of editorial discretion! [...]

• 57 Assany // Nov 8, 2006 at 7:01 pm

  In my view, The King’s 2003 speech was support War on Drugs. The King was strongly against drug trade. Until recently there were no executions of the convicts in Thailand for many years, because the king never rejected the petition from those who got death penalty from the court. First who was executed after long absent was the drug trader, and most executions after that were also drug traders. I heard that he will not forgive any case about drug any more, because he think that drug crime is more serious than other crime since it destroy the society not only for individuals.

• 58 Vichai N. // Nov 9, 2006 at 2:47 pm

  Assany – First let us get your facts right:

  “On October 19, 2003, after 68 years and 319 lives (316 men and three women) taken by the firing squad, Thailand marked the introduction of lethal injection as a means of execution by a solemn ceremony at the Bang Kwang jail – notoriously known as the ‘Bangkok Hilton’. The firing squad had replaced decapitation as the method of execution in 1935.

  On December 12, 2003, Thailand carried out its first executions by lethal injection, putting to death three people convicted of drug trafficking and one of murder at the Bang Kwang jail. Three drugs were used in the executions – the first sedated the convict, the second relaxed the muscles and the third stopped the heart.

  These were the only executions in 2003. Nine people had been put to death in 2002 and 18 in 2001.

  For the second consecutive year, since the last ten years, no executions were registered in Thailand in 2005.”
  (Source: Hands off Cain – Against Death Penalty in the World)
  ———————————-

  But even if there were executions, I have no fight with that. Those were JUDICIALLY carried out according to due process of laws.

  But of course Assany the King support the ‘war against drugs’, and, the King was strongly against the drug trade. Nobody refutes this as a fact.

  But the war agaist drugs have to carried out according to the rules of law, with due process to all suspects, according to the Thai constitution.

• 59 Assany // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:55 pm

  I’m sorry if my comment was not 100% accurate because I said it from memory. The part about “the king never rejected the petition from those who got death penalty from the court” I got this from Dr. Thongthong Chandrarangsu who said this in front of a class around the year 1993 (I’m one of the students at that time). He said that HMK did not want to give death to anyone even they were the criminals. My impression from that statement was we have no executions in the current reign for very long time (today I checked http://www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm, it was 8 years absent of executions from 1988-1995). After that I recall that I was surprised when I read the first execution news from newspaper. In my mind it was recently because I can remember it well but in fact it was 1996. So I accept my mistake, but I felt that it did not devalue my comment much as a whole.

  Fact is the king did not approved executions for quite a long period. When he started approval of it again, it was direct to drug criminals more than other crimes. In this year 60th golden jubilee celebration, there were releasing the prisoners and reduction of sentence for all convicted prisoners (may I conclude that it including murderers) except those who got more than 8 years of sentence in narcotic law. What do you think when he forgave murderers but not drugs-dealers?

  My point is that if you bring the king’s standpoint on drugs issue into consideration, when you read his 2003 speech again, you should see that he did not condemned Thaksin as in Vichai N interpreted.

  PS. I did not say that the king support extrajudicial killing, don’t accuse me of that.

• 60 Assany // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:47 pm

  Sorry, my mistake again.
  8 years absent of executions from 1989-1996.
  First case after that was 1997.

• 61 Johpa // Nov 25, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  Perhaps you will allow me a belated entry into this discussion as I further explore this website.

  I can not comment upon the thoughts of HM as I do not know what he thinks on the subject. But I believe there are some misconcpetions in some of the comments above.

  First, having spent nearly a decade living in a rural village in Chiang Mai Province, I have never encountered a “village” policeman of the description “…..uneducated, undertrained, underpaid and most probably very corrupt, were unreliable hicks.” In fact, unless there was a crime that had been committed, the only police I ever saw were those who came to visit friends or relatives. And those I met were all equally trained, equally educated, and alas equally underpaid so consequently prone to accepting a bribe here or there. But they were all stationed down at the Amphoe and, by my standards after living amongst the rural folks, not hicks. You want to see Thai hicks I can certainly introduce you to some bonafide “hicks”, but they aren’t policemen and would never be seen celebrating on wan tamruat.

  Second, not all the 2,500 people killed were total innocents. I know a few, including a distant cousin of my wife, who was killed but who were known to be local dealers. This does not mean I support these killings. I just want to correct the notion that all 2,500 people who were killed were not connnected to the drug trade.

  And the third point I would like to make is that in the villages, at least those I am familar with at a very personal level, the scourge of the meth trade had become so intolerable that my in-laws and friends shed no tears for the cousin who was gunned down. Almost every day my nephew and nieces (ages 12-16) would come back home from the local secondary school with tales of drugs being openly sold and used. The crime rate, especially theft and domestic violence had skyrocketed. What few people in the towns understand is that the rural areas already suffer from a high rate of violence. The open meth trade had created an intolerable situation, even by rural Thai standards, and nobody in the villages knew how to respond.

  For the villages up north, the meth epidemic came close on the heels of the AIDS epidemic. I once had a talk with the local kamnaan (sub-district head) and we estimated that over the past decade that the tamboon had lost the equivalent of 5% of its total population to AIDS. So when people heard that a few people in the Amphoe had been killled for suspicion of drug dealing, well relative to having a funeral once a week for years, it just wasn’t a big event. We are talking maybe 33 people per province, so one or two per district over three months is not going to attract much attention from people who rarely travel outside their district.

  I am not trying to condone the killings. I am no fan of Taksin. (Heck, I was protesting in the streets of Chiang Mai with my fellow teachers after the Sankampeng branch of the family shot the local teacher complaining of their encroachment upon public lands.) And I admit that my rural neigbors are not always as sophisticated as the readers of these boards, but their reactions to the killings should not be seen and judged only from the perspective of college grads who have no clue just how bad the meth plague had become.

  Again, my personal feelings on the subject do not coincide with the villagers, but I do not judge them as I do understand why they feel the way they do and I do respect their opinion. To all you anthros out there, their reactions were both moral and rational.

• 62 Vichai N. // Dec 2, 2006 at 1:19 pm

  Johpa there was a certain Jasmine who posted in the Nation Webboard (Forum #1104) and interestingly she gave an account about the Chiengmai police that reinforces the police corruption you also cited.
  ——————
  Author: Jasmine
  Date: 22 Nov 2549 15:35

  For 3 years now that I have been living and spending my time with the lovely Thai juveniles in the upper north of Thailand. Through these innocent kids, I have learned that : the government officials will never successfully be able to bring down the rate or even to stop the using of amphetamines by the juveniles in major or modern cities like Chiang-mai, Chiang-rai, Nakhoensawan, Pissanuloke, etc.
  The first thing is : there are ,still many low & high ranking law enforcement officials , taking the bribes from the active narcotic networks ; some officials have gone to the worst side, by directly involved in the backing and selling the narcotics to the youth, or giving 5-10 tablets of amphetamines in return for having sex with the female juveniles.

  It also happens in Chiang-Mai when bad cops forced good kids to deliver amphetamines to street users, or even to sell marijuana to foreign tourists who come to see major temples in Chiang-mai province.

  This mutual exchange can often be seen in the city of Chiang-mai ; any kid in the ring will know. Second thing is : the lack of concern in the part of the government’s social services to patrol the streets to search for the inside information about the welfare of these innocent children in order to find the real cause and to set up any necessary prevention measures to guard them from being exploited and attacked by the narcotic pushers and sellers.

  The Society must give more attention and concern to this problem now before more and more children are dragged into this underworld dirty arena — making huge profit on the lives of these beautiful chuildren of Thailand.

• 63 A loose cannon in the “war room” // Aug 23, 2007 at 1:19 pm

  [...] First, all in the room would agree that there were significant human rights abuses during the period of the Thaksin government. But to suggest that the coup was staged in response to human rights abuses was fanciful. In response to Surat’s condemnation of western nations for their alleged silence in relation to human rights abuses I asked what the panel’s view was about the silence, and possibly even endorsement, of the Thai king in relation to the war on drugs (for extensive discussion on this issue see the comments on this post). [...]

• 64 Teth // Sep 14, 2007 at 12:17 am

  Vichai, you are incredibly deluded and yet persistent and stubborn. Presented with clear, repeated statements, you continue on your “FACTS” tirade regardless.

  A last attempt shall be made by myself here:

  1. How many of those killed were innocents? A specific number, please. They cannot all be innocents nor can they all be drug dealers as we are ALL well aware of. If you don’t have a specific number, just admit that you are vaguely estimating or extrapolating.

  2. Don’t keep twisting the HMK’s comment to fit your image of him. He is fallible as we all are. To say he isn’t is to believe the propaganda they spout about him. He is a good man, but he is not infallible. From those comments posted above, it is pretty clear HMK certainly does not feel the same as you do regarding the innocent deaths nor does he share your doggedness is defending the innocent. In fact, he supported the war on drugs.

• 65 Vichai N. // Sep 14, 2007 at 1:55 am

  Teth – (1) All those extrajudicially killed were innocent (2) And yes HMK himself admits he is fallible.

• 66 nganadeeleg // Sep 14, 2007 at 9:01 am

  Vichai N says it best here:
  http://thaksinskeptic.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/mitigating-factors-arguing-thaksins-case-ii/#comment-15

  “Let me add a few points that would suggest that Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage was inspired by megalomania and that Thaksin was a psycopath. Thaksin is/was a well educated police lt. colonel, who possessed a Ph.D. in criminal justice from Sam Houston University at Texas, USA. And during all the time that the anti-yaa baa war was going on, from start to horrific finish, the FACE of this war had always been Thaksin Shinawatra(Thaksin wanted the glamor of the kill, so to speak) Thaksin Shinawatra therefore, by his police background and educational achievement, and by his position of PM of Thailand should have insisted that RULE OF LAW should be observed religiously while his war on drugs raged on. At no time, when the reports of abuses and extrajudicial killings were coming out did Thaksin hesitate to investigate or to ask for a pause in the killings. That famous “The United Nations is not my father” outburst of Thaksin Shinawatra was the highlight of exactly where Thaksin Shinawatra stand was in the extra-judicials; e.g., he wanted the Thais and the world to know he was the Maestro.

  And further, Thaksin Shinawatra as PM of Thailand at that time, and possessing overwhelming unassailable majority in Thai parliament could have authored the most punishing anti-drugs laws, but DID NOT, but instead chose to deliver shoot-to-kill entertainment to the guillible Thai rurals. That certainly allowed Thaksin Shinawatra to feed his megalomaniac lust to be god-like . . . unfortunately at the expense of horrific carnage to many innocents.“

• 67 Historicus // Sep 14, 2007 at 11:38 am

  Teth: Vichai is correct, in a way, regarding the “innocents”. The attempt to divide up those killed in the “war on drugs” is missing the point that these were all extrajudicial killings (until proven otherwise) and that means that none of them were proven guilty of anything at the time they were killed. This splitting into innocents and guilty by the so-called independent commission seems to be a way to justify the king’s statements. If you read his statements he considered that the guilty had paid the price. He later said that maybe it had gone to far, but he didn’t seem all that concerned.

• 68 jess // Sep 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm

  I cannot find any strong defense or purpose for extrajudicial killings anywhere in the world. Israel and USA says war on terror justify use of extreme measures (sanctions). But for certain Thaksin’s anti-drugs war cannot be categorized as ‘war on terror’, or could it?

Leave a Comment