A confusing multitude of different protest groups are out on the streets again, suddenly changing the high stakes game over the future of Thai society yet again. There are several factions of Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), Dr. Tul’s Multicoloreds, and those associated with the new street protest group named the “Lightening Rod” with its light blue headbands — organised by the Democrat Party and its Blue Sky TV station.
In this article I will try to describe the new situation that began developing during the Pheua Thai government’s efforts to rush a reconciliation bill through parliament. It is not just the opposition Democrat Party, and the PAD that are severely opposed to this bill, but also the Red Shirts and many Pheua Thai MPs close to the Red Shirts. This has led to severe frictions in the Pheua Thai party. Several Red Shirt leaders and Pheua Thai MPs told me that Thaksin has not consulted them over the reconciliation bill. They suggested he was not receptive to their attempts to b cautious and that the efforts were mostly engineered by Pheua Thai party list MP Wattana Muangsuk. One Pheua Thai MP even said to me that he felt being treated by Thaksin as if he were “under his feet”, and that he was extremely disappointed and upset, and that this was not what he was fighting for. Following Thaksin’s speech at Rajaprasong on 19 May 2012, many Red Shirts were very disappointed with Thaksin’s stand.
Already during Thaksin’s stay in Siem Reap during this year’s Songkran several Red Shirt leaders and members of Class 10 have tried to urge Thaksin not to rush the reconciliation bill, and especially not the included amnesty, but to no avail (Wassana Nanuam reported on the Class 10 visit first and this has been confirmed to me by one of the participants). While the first signs of disappointment among many Red Shirts with Thaksin appeared after his speech on the Siem Reap stage on 14 April 2012, this disappointment increased following his more detailed video link outlining his views on the reconciliation process at the 19 May 2012 Rajaprasong rally. After that, many Red Shirts were openly expressing feelings of betrayal.
On 29 May 2012, a breakaway Red Shirt faction decided that they will stay in front of parliament, holding their ground against the PAD protest, announced for 30 May 2012. While reasoning that they wanted to protect the parliament and the government against another possible PAD occupation, another motive mentioned by some of their organisers was that if clashes erupted, it could have been useful to prevent the reconciliation bill from passing, or at least to slow it down. While the Red Shirts would have had difficulties openly protesting the bill, they were about as opposed to it as the PAD but motivated by different reasons — while the PAD accused the government of attempting to whitewash Thaksin, the Red Shirts wanted to prevent any form of amnesty that could result in the end of investigations of the April-May 2010 violence. The UDD has disavowed the breakaway faction, stating that anyone staying at parliament was not a real Red Shirt. Over the night and in the morning there were intense negotiations between the different Red Shirt factions, as well as with the police, resulting in the Red Shirts retreating from parliament, and deciding to just watch developments from afar.
With the situation was momentarily defused, the PAD began gathering at Royal Plaza by midday of 30 May 2012. Their march to parliament was announced for 3 pm. At parliament, on Gate 3 at the Rajawithi/Pichai Road intersection, the “Multicoloreds” assembled — a few hundred protesters with light blue headbands fired up by speeches held from a small mobile stage. Several Democrat Party MPs came out of parliament to visit the protesters. I saw Klong Toey MP Anucha Burapachaisri, Nakhon Si Thammarat MP Thepthai Senpong, and Chumphon MP Chumpol Julsai – who was in 2010 photographed by Matichon carrying an M16 rifle leaving parliament with Suthep Thaugsuban during the Red Shirt invasion into parliament grounds on 7 April 2010. These protesters said that they would merge with the PAD protesters when they arrived at parliament.
At 2.20 pm everything came to a standstill when Princess Soamsawali came to parliament for a ceremony commemorating the death of King Prajadhipok at his statue in front of the parliament building. Soon after the royal motorcade left the PAD protesters arrived at parliament, while at the same time the Multicoloreds, who after a brief scuffle broke through a thin police line, met them there.
Approximately 5000 protesters were now gathered at parliament. I left, as my already ailing camera finally gave up, and went to buy a new camera.
Early morning on 31 May 2012, the first day of the reconciliation bill debate, the news reported that PAD leader Chamlong Srimuang Srimuang threatened an invasion of parliament. When I arrived very few protesters were there. Gate 3 was designated as the entry gate to parliament, and both on Pichai Road and on Rajawithi Road police had erected barricades of concrete slabs and razor wire. Two negotiators from the protesters asked Pol Major General Wichai Sangprapai if he could reconsider opening the roads. He refused the request saying that the day before the protesters failed to keep an agreement not to push through the police lines and that the leaders obviously could not control their protesters as even a bottle was thrown at police officers during the incident.
Police officers were then given orders, to remain calm, and not to use violence against protesters, and only to use their shields to stop protesters from breaking their lines.
While there were constant rumors of an impending invasion into parliament the day on the street was rather uneventful unlike inside parliament — which saw the MPs in near riot situations.
On the street Democrat MPs visited protesters of the Multicolored group at Gate 3, talking with them over the barricades, and also cheering on the PAD over the fence at the main gates.
The PAD played the usual protest games, issuing ultimatums and letters to demand 200 PAD representatives be allowed to watch the proceedings inside parliament, fully knowing that there are only 145 seats available for visitors which were fully occupied anyhow.
Two entries in my notebook were that at 2.05 pm a small fire cracker exploded among the multicolored group, and at 3 pm the multicolored group played the anti-communist right wing song ‘Nac Pandin’ over their loudspeakers. The day ended with a heavy rainstorm, drenching police officers and protesters alike.
Later at night my sources told me to go very early to parliament as the protesters would definitely plan to do something to prevent voting on the reconciliation bill. On 1 June 2012, I arrived before 6 am at parliament. The fence at the parliament main gates was reinforced with razor wire, and more barricades were erected on Pichai Road. Again, police officers were given strict orders to only use shields against protesters, and not to use any violence, and not to allow themselves to be provoked by protesters. While the PAD area at the front gates of parliament was almost empty, two dozen multicolored protesters have gathered at Kan Ruan intersection at Rajawithi Road. Over the loudspeaker they threatened to move their protest to the World Economic Forum, but one of their leaders said to me that they had no intensions to follow through on this threat. At 7.22 am, when their larger mobile stage arrived, the small group of protesters attempted to occupy the intersection, this way blocking the only open entry to parliament. Police easily encircled the small group which unsuccessfully tried to push the police officers away.
The larger mobile stage was then confiscated by police and driven away, leaving only a pickup truck mounted with loudspeakers. In English a speaker on the stage made the announcement that the foreign media should “announce to the world that the police attacked the people”, and that they were protesting against the “fucking unity bill”. Meanwhile several cars with MPs passed through the intersection and went to parliament.
A terrified female uniformed palace official on her way to work was frozen with panic, and carefully led aside by protesters. I asked police officers to take care of her when she just stood next to the protests without moving or answering any questions.
At 8.10 am several hundred PAD protesters arrived from their campsite at Royal Plaza, beefing up the small group of Multicoloreds, and immediately pushed the police away, managing to occupy the intersection and to block the entry route to parliament. The situation immediately calmed down, and no side had any injuries.
About 30 Pheua Thai MPs and 5 Democrat Party MPs were inside parliament by then, the remainder were outside, waiting to be able to get in. A high ranking Pheua Thai MP told me that the government will use a very soft approach with the protesters, and will under no circumstances have clashes between protesters and police. He also said that if the parliament cannot convene they will just postpone the session. Soon after he and several other Pheua Thai Party MPs left parliament, protected by police, through a hole in a fence.
At about 10.00 am the Kan Ruan intersection was still calm. Chen Thaugsuban, Suthep Thaugsuban’s younger brother, walked through the protesters and police let him enter parliament. Straight after, Suthep arrived, was hugged and cheered by protesters and also walked through the police line. The next MP that came was Chuvit Kamolvisit, former massage parlor tycoon, was cheered on by the protesters. Several Democrat MPs trickled in after as well.
I called Gotae, a Red Shirt leader from Pathum Thani, asking him if the Red Shirts planned anything. He said that they will have a stage at the National Memorial at Vibhavadi Rangsit Road, but would stay away from parliament and only move to the nearby 11th Infantry Regiment in case the military would attempt a coup.
At 13.00 am police began dismantling the barricades at Pichai Road, opening another entry to parliament for MPs to attend the afternoon session, but PAD protesters arrived with a mobile stage from Pichai Road, and immediately rushed the police, pushing the officers away. The police ran and regrouped in a new line maybe 200 meters away from the Gate. PAD protesters stopped, and both sides settled down at the new line.
Soon after, this the reconciliation bill vote was postponed.
At 4.16 pm the Multicoloreds closed their stage at the Kan Ruan intersection. When their loudspeaker went silent several police officers applauded and cheered. I went then to the PAD to take a few photos of their crowd. As soon as I arrived a shocking incident occurred — the first time in the past 6 years that I have seen Asia Times Online correspondent Sean Crispin working in the field during the protests. He swiftly walked through the PAD crowd, sweating like a pig, and even greeted me, passed me, and left me in complete bewilderment and quite speechless as well.
I went home soon, and saw on ASTV how the PAD declared victory, and announced a brief holiday over Visakha Bucha and to gather again on 5 June 2012, to open a permanent stage at Makhawan Bridge from which they would operate from then on, depending on the situation. The Santi Asoke’s Dhamma Army will continue to camp at Royal Plaza.
On Saturday, 2 June 2012, the Red Shirts held a mass gathering at Thunderdome Muang Thong Thani. The arena was packed, and the area in front as well — quite a flashback to the 11 October 2008 rally there in which the UDD for the first time appeared as “Red Shirts”. Thaksin phoned in, and again, after his phone in on 30 May 2012, to a 111 foundation event, apologised to the Red Shirts for his remarks on his 19 May 2012, speech, repairing some of the damage he did. One Red Shirt leader said to me that the PAD protests had been a blessing in disguise as the appearance of a common enemy helped the reconciliation of several breakaway Red Shirt factions as well.
The real surprise of the day, and a completely new development in the ongoing conflict scenario, took place in front of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, where the Democrat Party held a rally with about 2000 protesters with the light blue headbands that appeared first a few days before under the Mulicolored on 30 May 2012. The new protest group is named “Sai Loh Fah” – the lightening rod. The Democrat Party has now made the transition into directly commanding their own street protest group. One of the party’s senior politicians explained to me the reasons for this change in strategy is that all media is closed to them now, that inside parliament they are not allowed to finish their speeches, and that they needed a channel to reach the people. Several Democrat MPs said that they intend to continue and build up this street protest group. Supporting this of course is their allied satellite TV station “Blue Sky TV”.
Most major Democrat Party politicians were present, including former Prime Ministers Abhisit Vejjajiva and Chuan Leekpai, Satit Wongnongtoey, Party Spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut, and former Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin. Also Deputy Spokeswoman Mallika Boonmeetrakool, who became recently famous for her internet campaigns against perceived offenders against the lese majeste laws, was at the rally.
After Abhisit finished his long speech, the rally ended at about 10 pm with singing of the royal anthem. Footage of the previous days protests at parliament was screened as people left the ground.
These events leave Thailand now in a dramatically changed situation. After the relative calm following the 2011 elections, and the start of the collapse of the Red Shirt movement, first fuelled by gradually increasing infighting, but then accelerated by Thaksin’s speeches at the Siem Reap stage and especially at the Rajaprasong stage on 19 May 2012, and the inability of the PAD and Siam Samakkhi to draw any meaningful crowds, now everything has been heated up and turned around again. It took only a few days. The situation is now again extremely fluid, and absolutely unpredictable. Coup rumours are making the rounds again and this time there might be, according to my own sources, a real possibility of the military stepping in, should there be severe clashes, especially when combined with the chaotic situation in parliament. While the initiator of this new instability quite clearly was the government’s rushing of a highly criticised reconciliation bill, decisions of both the PAD and Democrat Party have contributed to the rapid deterioration as well.
Reconciliation now seems further away than at any time since the 2011 elections.































Great detail, great on-the-ground reporting and photos, without Nick, we would all be in a very hazy fog……….
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks for the comprehensive account and contextualization and especially for the account of the (light) blue shirts.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Vital, what you see is all there is (WYSIATI), coverage by Nostitz again.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
The Reconciliation bill shouldn’t have been put up in the first place as none of the content makes any sense, and reading the brief contents of the other 3 by PTP and the Reds, the only difference is they don’t want the PAD hooligans and the Demorat pigs to be set free. So what “Reconciliation” is there. What they should have done is drop all the bills and concentrate on the Charter amendment, by that the reds have every means to support it and wouldn’t be in the middle no where trying to figure out what to go for as the Reconciliation Bills were not agreeable by them as well. Many was forced to support the bill is just because is a Govt they have chosen and they can’t afford to turn against it allowing the Dem pigs to move in.
Now that its been dropped for the time being, I hope they will altogether trash it in the dust bin and concentrate on the fight of “Charter Amendment” which is more meaningful with a strong stand as none have the right to block it as the majority of Thais have the last word of accepting the changes or not. It’s the people’s constitution and not any individual groups, political parties or judges decision.
Last of all, I must say, no one should need to follow any media in this country except Nick if one wants a true detailed report on any event…
The two mainstream English media is a total joke and disgrace to the media industry. BTW Nick, why don’t you get a translator to do a translation on your reports so the Thais can read it as well….just a wild suggestion
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks Lalida,
In the past, Nick’s reports have been translated into Thai (and other languages), but this usually happens on a pretty ad hoc basis. Here at New Mandala HQ we don’t always even know that it is happening.
But if somebody out there would like to translate this report and wants to get in touch then you can find me at the usual place. We can certainly link to any translations that emerge.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Nick,
thanks for the post, as great as usual.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
PTP are likely to be dissolved (as signs coming in/Jatuporn was removed for a starters) that is why amendments of constitution and amnesty bill must come in fast because many folk are still in jail. It is not (simply) about Thaksin who may now be wiser to the facts. Also, there are four versions of the amnesty bill circulating, not just one. UDD favoured Nitirat’s amendments would likely be a version accepted by PTP. Nitirat stated clearly that the Constitutional Court has already overstepped its “constituted powers”. The rush noted in the article by Nich had a (reasoned) sense of urgency given that the Constitutional Court has already started a coup…
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks for the thorough ground report as always.
“The next MP that came was Chuvit Kamolvisit, former massage parlor tycoon, was cheered on by the protesters.”
That’s fascinating, as Chuwit has been a thorn in the side of both Democrat and PT administrations. I suppose with PT in power, any anti-establishment terrier will do as a temporary ally…
“The new protest group is named “Sai Loh Fah” – the lightening rod. The Democrat Party has now made the transition into directly commanding their own street protest group.”
Agree that this is the biggest news of the weekend. Maybe this is good, in a weird way? Just as with PT/Thaksin experiencing a fallout with the UDD, might the Dems splitting more cleanly from the PAD allow just a tiny bit of complexity into the discussion, away from the reductionist Red/Yellow split that lazy journos and forum posters rely on?
“A terrified female uniformed palace official on her way to work was frozen with panic, and carefully led aside by protesters.”
Nothing quite as shocking as when the version of reality you’re selling contradicts the one you’re seeing.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks Nick.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks Nick, excellent as usual.
Wondering whether you see any direct opposition to this ‘Lightening rod’ group forming?
Have there been analogies made between the Buddhist sense of rebirth, and rebirth in Thai political machinations? Where’s the nirvana of Thai politics?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
So the stage is crowded but yet again as the puppets come to the fore, the strings of their masters jerking them hither and fro, a cause united, a purpose elusive, they rally forth with the righteous fervor of ignorant bliss.
Does it mean you have moved beyond jaded cynicism when the travails of all politics appears simply a sublime ecstasy of ongoing self gratification and holds little more than the allure of a rerun of Gilligan’s Island? As to Thai politics to quote former Australian band Matt Finish “it just goes on and on like coast roads and bad TV”.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks Nick for the insight.
As far as I’ve gathered, Puea Thai’s political strategy isn’t so much “reconciliation” as an incremental “reset” to the pre-2006 days.
I doubt that they will succeed in pushing this bill through in the near future, but I also doubt they intend to- the aim of the game here, just as it was with the 2010 Red Shirt rallies (it was stated as much in their pre-”million man march” press conference at the FCCT) is to put the Thai establishment into a position where it has to back down or reveal its authoritarian face to the world.
PT can afford to play the long game here because time is clearly on their side.
As a side note, Thaksin should probably be thankful his money has been kept nice and safe from the Global Financial Crisis in the public piggy bank- who knows how much he would have lost if he had it all to spend!
Quality comment or not?
0
0
A good piece Nick.
Do you think the fractures in the red shirt movement, especially those that were exacerbated by the rushed amnesty/reconcilliation bill, have been reversed in a sustainable way?
Will the PTP top brass/Thaksin be likely to listen more to those who want to see full investigations into 2010 conducted and justice to be done? Or is amnesty too significant a part of the deal Thaksin/PTP has made with the army etc, for it do be changed?
Also, what about the Sai Loh Fah brigades? You’ve mentioned how the Democrat sponsored TV channel has some very grim content which engourages extremism… do you expect this group to emerge as a significant force? What role do you expect it to play among the pro-establishment colours (Multicolours, PAD/Santi-Asoke etc)? The old yellows seem to be on the wane with Siam Semmakhi emerging as a more resolute force. Do you expect Sai Loh Fah to be a more broadbased/middle-class movement, or will carry all the extremist baggage that the other groups have/do?
Cheers
Quality comment or not?
0
0
The country is in trouble when people cannot agree to disagree civilly but instead will only disagree to agree on anything.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“Greg Lowe”:
It’s very difficult to answer those questions as there are too many factors involved. I just read in the papers that for now the controversial bills have been taken off Friday’s session. That, for the time being eases the situation.
Anything else is speculation. At the moment is seems that the different Red Shirt factions have found common ground again. I do not want to second-guess Thaksin, i think we will know later what he will do now. As to the deal (if there was one, what i assumed) – i think that looks to be quite off now. I believe that recent events have shifted the power structure in the quite complex Red Shirt – Thaksin/Party Puyai relationship in favor of the Red Shirts, signified also in Thaksin’s need to issue an apology for his remarks in the May 19 video link.
‘Blue Sky’ indeed has an extra-ordinary amount of hate speech content, uses at times very rude language against political opponents (at least in the times i watched it at home) – more so than in the nowadays quite professionally run Red Shirt propaganda station ‘Asia Update’ – but i was told that ‘Blue Sky’ has quite huge ratings now.
If the Democrats will continue their new street movement, i believe that this could turn into a significant force, especially if their sympathy carriers like Abhisit, Chuan, etc continue to appear at rallies. Their MP’s will be able to mobilize through their party and canvasser networks without too much effort several thousand people for stage rallies, and as every political party in Thailand many Democrat MP’s also have access to a large number of the rougher elements of Thai society. It is yet too far too early to say if this could develop into a social mass movement.
The Democrats though have no or very little experience yet to organize, control or develop a street protest movement directly, as so far they have only piggybacked the PAD and the less than successful Multicoloreds. What is clear though is that they will definitely collaborate with the PAD, at least in their position against the government – but this will be a strategic alliance with quite a few strains in their relationship. While there are overlapping agendas and ideologies, there are also significant differences.
A big question mark is also of course what position the military will take now – will it actively support the street opposition as they did in especially 2008, or will it stay on the sidelines and watch how all develops?
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how the situation develops.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
The “what-ifs” and “possibly this and possibly that” may fail to provide an overview of the Thai sociopolitical gestalt that would give better perspective prior to posing questions and offering alternative answers that are unable to find root in likelihood.
The Blue Sky Channel might be seen as an interim and natural outgrowth of reactionary elements in the conservative sector who thought the Red Shirt/UDD/coalition of pro-democracy/pro-freedom of speech advocates would either have given up by now or been forced into retreat. In short, “the situation” is a lot tougher to resolve than the traditional Thai way of dealing with such matters has been able to deal with in the past.
It seems that finally, and it’s about time, a real break has occurred in Thai society between those who have had enough and those who think they can keep steering the course of events – that includes making people think and act the way they expect them to. the dance is far from over, but if any predictions are in order, some quarters feel they will more likely than not involve protracted unrest until some shooting and another coup takes place. The nature of the next coup is, however, open to question. If the “let’s have change” faction “wins,” the coup would involve a reversion to one of the earlier constitutions, such as that before the 2006 coup. If “the old guard” itself “wins,” some housecleaning will take place that will of necessity move Thailand a lot further along the non-freedom path. This for a country that the US badly wants to develop more and more economic ties and military cooperation, and which is being considered as part of a Harvard Thai studies program.
In the end, no one knows. Everyone in history who thought they did were wrong from time to time, often fatally.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“Jim Taylor
From how i understood the “amnesty” one thing mooted was that Thaksin would return and have his junta-inspired conviction expunged but still has the possibility of facing the charges again in a proper civilian court not something put in place by an illegal military coup. Bangkok Pundit refers to that in his piece here (http://asiancorrespondent.com/83699/a-review-of-the-thai-reconciliation-bills/) which offers a deeper insight into the reconciliation bills (there’s not just one being mooted).
“As independent legal scholar Verapat notes, the explanation of the Reconciliation Bill will erase the effects of the coup and states that Thaksin will come back to face the justice system again. However, Verapat states it is unclear whether this will happen or not because the Attorney-General or an entity who has power to file a case may view that there is no need for a new case…”
In that piece also BP points out the differences between Sonthi and Nattawut’s bills.
“For Nattuwat’s version, those who commit terrorist acts and acts causing death won’t get off. This is the main difference although the wording throughout does differ slightly and this may affect how broad the amnesty is for some offences.”
So the reconciliation bill has been misrepresented to a degree but, as others have pointed out, it’s now likely dead in the water as the focus switches to the battle with the constitutional court.
Also the ICC case is still pending – any amnesty given to Abhisit and his mob domestically would be null and void internationally. It would be different for any UDD who has already faced court as they will have already been seen to have undergone a “due process.” Abhisit hasn’t even been properly investigated and therefore still has a case to answer. The ICC are still to make a decision on whether they will formally investigate Abhisit.
Thaksin’s problem has been a) his own personal greed b) his naivety that he seemed to genuinely believe these people were going going to stick to any deal. The reconciliation bill certainly caused alienation from his base but the actions of the PAD/Dems seemed to have pushed everyone back together.
As for the Dems “lightning rod” group that Nick mentions I wrote about their show on Blue Sky TV over a week ago and how their double lightning rod symbol was reminiscent of the Nazi’s SS symbol.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/83377/neo-fascist-sympathising-thai-democrats-shocking-use-of-nazi-symbolism/
Interestingly the Dems now seem to have reduced the “thunder bolt” or “lightning rod” symbol to only one.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
This was a very good report, Nick. It seemed well balanced and informed of certain potentially important developments that I haven’t seen reported elsewhere. Thanks.
By the way, may I ask what type of camera and lenses you normally use for your street work?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“In the end, no one knows. Everyone in history who thought they did were wrong from time to time, often fatally.
That’s certainly true, Frank.
The situation seems very fluid and contains more than the odd irony or paradox.
Thaksin and the army/establishment are the only beneficiaries of an amnesty: the former gets his money back and could return to the country, the latter will not be held to account for the crackdowns and coups.
If Thaksin continues to pursue his own interests through an amnesty bill, he risks a permanent fracture with the red shirts.
If the red shirts separate from Thaksin for whatever reason, they may have less funding and a weaker organisation, but they will be seen by more people to be an independent movement for social justice and greater political enfranchisement.
If the red shirts could survive any counter-actions by Thaksin for having the audacity to carve their own path (and such survival is a pretty big if in my opinion), then they could well end up being a greater threat to the establishment. Currently it is easy for certain groups to dismiss the red shirts as a toxic proxy force of Thaksin. If that relationship was severed then it would be much more difficult to ignore their demands.
Graham Greene could have penned an excellent novel based on the current situation on Thailand.
So the establishment will benefit from the amnesty, but could suffer more from
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew, do you actually have any faith that the ICC will consider a case against Abhisit?
Is there any precedent for this, considering they usually deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Isn’t the whole thing just counter-PR from Amsterdam to embarrass Abhisit and make it look like Thaksin/RA is actually trying to do something to hold people to account (at least on the army/govt side) for the May 19, 2010 crackdown?
That seemed to be the tone and thrust of Robert Amsterdam’s speech to the red shirts on May 19, 2012, when he said such an ICC conviction/case “may never happen… but we are trying”. [not a verbatim quote
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“Marteau”:
Not exactly a dream equipment: i just upgraded my dead EOS 500D to a 600D. I use a Sigma 18 – 50 / 2.8 . But it’s affordable and does the job. Better cameras and lenses are just too expensive.
The Sigma is not bad, but the higher resolution the chips are, the more visible are also the faults in the less costly lenses, meaning that slight sharpness problems at the borders especially at open F- stops become more pronounced as well.
For some other projects i work on i still use film, both 135 and 120. One of my favorite cameras is an old folder camera from the 1950′s – a Balda Super Baldax. During the floods, for example, i used my digital camera without battery pack for images i sent to my agency, and a small Contax T3 and my Balda for my more personal work.
For street work i prefer a small equipment, just the necessary stuff, and no more. I hate lugging around tons of equipment.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Marteau: “By the way, may I ask what type of camera and lenses you normally use for your street work?”
Check this out:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fxif/
Quality comment or not?
0
0
If the third reading of the ammendment act must be within 15 days constitutionally, then there is pressure on this to be resolved quickly.
I am not sure when the 15th day is.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg
Is the ICC thing purely a PR exercise? No. Does it have PR mileage? Sure.
What I do know is that the court would’ve dismissed it out of hand if it had have been purely PR and I am sure very highly respected lawyers like Knoops wouldn’t have touched it with a barge pole if it was just “PR”.
But yeah both sides have been engaged in a huge PR play.
Yes there is precedent – will try to dig it out a later point (am on train) – think it was Guatemala. Do remember recent case where someone was found guilty for recruiting child soldiers and not “killing”.
I hope the ICC does accept the case. The recent shenanigans from Dems/PAD and const court only strentgthens case that Thailand can’t fix it’s own history of impunity at the moment. Any investigation by ICC would likely get beneath surface of issues like the “Men in Black” in a way that hasn’t been done yet.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew
Personally, I’d bet it’s all a PR stunt from RA/Thaksin. Prestigious law firms work for money and if they have a cleint with deep pockets instructing them to exhaust every avenue possible, then they will do so.
I guess the only problem with it being a cynical PR stunt, if that is indeed what it is, is that it would be despicable to build the hopes of victims and the families of victims that something meaningful (apart from a loss of face for Abhisit/Dems) was likely to come of the whole process.
If, on the other hand, the ICC does take up the case and independently investigate the crackdowns and establish (what exactly is the alleged offence?) the facts according to international standards, then everyone will a) accept that Abhisit has been found guilty in a case which may set a legal precedent for other foreign rulers/state agents with British citizenship, or b) accept that he has not been found guilty and say no more about it.
If the ICC petition is being used for its proper purpose and shows that while “Thailand can’t fix it’s own history of impunity” the ICC can, the only downside (one could say a fairly major one at that) is that other parties won’t be held to account in the same way.
Thailand’s “history of impunity” will work quite well for, say, military top brass who may have their noses rubbed in it, but are beyond the jurisdiction of the ICC due to their status as Thais.
The same thing goes for those such as Thaskin, as I don’t think ICC jurisdiction also covers Montenegro, so any such ICC investigation won’t fully address the issue of the black shirts; substantiate whether Thaksin was bankrolling the demonstrations and instructing on strategy (directly or indirectly) and the use of violence by the anti-government side; or whether the view of some analysts that there was a strategy from elements within the anti-government side to push the protester body count up to 500+ in order to force a coup, ending the Democrat administration, further discredit the country while bolstering Thaksin’s claim that he was the victim of a coup-happy paternalistic state.
Wouldn’t you agree with that Andrew, that it would be positive if Abhisit was to be found guilty, fairly and under international standards, but a crying shame that the likes of Thaksin and elements of the army would continue to evade justice, with the whole process proving that Thailand’s “history of impunity” continues to work wuite well for those who do not have British passports?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg
Article 12 (3) of Rome Statute says that ad hoc arrangements can be made by individual nations to call for ICC investigations. Meaning they don’t have to be member states.
I think everything back to 1973 (and possibly earlier) needs to have some form of investigation including, of course, War on Drugs, Tak Bai, Krue Se. I don’t think this can be done internally in Thailand due to “sensitivities”.
And I agree, if it was only Abhisit this time it wouldn’t be enough but it would send shockwaves through Thailand of that there is no doubt.
Of course, anyone is free to bring a case against Thaksin via the ICC and the Dems could’ve done so when they were in power using Article 12 (3) or signed Thailand up to the ICC as well. Ask them why they didn’t. Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?
I aslo think the ICC would have the independence to get beneath the surface of how much Thaksin was actually involved in setting off the violence. If they did investigate the presence of the “Black Shirts” it would probably make up a huge part of Mark’s defence so would have to be investigated further than anyone has yet managed.
I don’t buy that the Red Shirts wanted a massive “death toll” otherwise they’d have stayed and died some more. I would also say that all the evidence points to Thailand being a “coup-happy paternalistic state.” If Thaksin is a “victim” is a moot point. Thai democracy and the Thai people are the real victims of any coup.
What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith. You might find that hard to believe but there are several very credible people (not being paid a bean, not lawyers) who are backing it. More will be revealed, of that there is no doubt.
I still think the ICC accepting the case is a long shot, but as I said above it has been done in good faith. If nothing else it informs those people in Thailand, of whatever political persuasion, that any kind of massacre or slaughter, even of small numbers, could see them in The Hague at some future point.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
I agree with Andrew Spooner #24 and 26 about the ICC.
It is not a mere PR. It has been done in good faith. But it is extremely difficult and a very long shot.
But the fact that the case is not thrown out yet after a year and a half, gives some hope.
I think the victims/ families understand the little chance of sucess. But for them, it is worth trying because the Thai justice system cannot be trusted. It is part of how impunity has been instutionalised in the country.
Even an investigation by the ICC, regardless of its findings and decision in this particular case, would have huge impacts on the “institutinalized impunity” in Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
c25
“The same thing goes for those such as Thaskin, as I don’t think ICC jurisdiction also covers Montenegro…”
Incorrect.
“Montenegro
Ratification and Implementation Status:
On 23 October 2006, Montenegro confirmed ratification of the Rome Statute. The Statute became effective for Montenegro on 3 June 2006, the date of State succession. “
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/Eastern+European+States/Montenegro.htm
Quality comment or not?
0
0
I was made aware by a friend that Sean Crispin was very angry about my comment about him in this article.
I apologize to Sean if this has hurt his feelings – it was only meant as a lighthearted joke, nothing else.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks for the response Andrew
Would you be able to share some more details on what the application actually relates too in terms of specific offences or human rights abuses? How is the application progressing? Has a full application been filed? I don’t feel this has been made explicit anywhere. Sorry if it has.
Also, Thongchai said, “But the fact that the case is not thrown out yet after a year and a half, gives some hope.” I didn’t think there was a case yet or any formal investigation. Am I wrong?
“You might find that hard to believe but there are several very credible people (not being paid a bean, not lawyers) who are backing it. More will be revealed, of that there is no doubt.”
I don’t find it hard to believe at all. I’m sure there are many credible and committed people involved who want to see someone finally held to account for at least one of Thailand’s gross human rights abuses. The most recent event makes sense as one to start with. If the case actually comes under the ICC’s remit/jurisdiction then I hope a full, fair and balanced investigation takes place — God knows there are so many questions that need answering. If anyone is found guilty by the ICC then I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law in line with international standards of law and justice.
“Of course, anyone is free to bring a case against Thaksin via the ICC and the Dems could’ve done so when they were in power using Article 12 (3) or signed Thailand up to the ICC as well. Ask them why they didn’t. Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?”
“Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?” I think you’ll find that’s why no Thai government would support an ICC investigation. Remember Thaksin said, in relation to the UN condemnation of extra-judicial killings during his War on Drugs: “The UN is not my father.” Well if the UN is not his father, I’m sure the ICC is little more than a distant relative’s imaginary friend, unless he’s petitioning the ICC to investigate Abhisit that is.
“Article 12 (3) of Rome Statute says that ad hoc arrangements can be made by individual nations to call for ICC investigations. Meaning they don’t have to be member states.”
That’s good to know. But looking at the case in point, it is the fact that if Abhisit is a British citizen as RA claims, then that enables individuals to bring a case against him because the UK is a member state/party to the Treaty of Rome. The fact that Thaksin or Anupong aren’t citizens of a member state means that they cannot be held to account by the ICC, unless the Thai government makes an ad hoc application to the ICC to investigate the crackdown. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
“What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith.”
I’m sure it has been done in good faith, that is with Robert Amsterdam acting in “good faith” to his client, Thaksin Shinawattra.
I’m unconvinced that anything will stick. I do not believe that RA is acting to satisfy a quest for justice and accountability. His job is to represent and lobby for his client. A key part of that process — especially considering Thaksin’s aims to return to Thailand, get his money back and, most likely, return to politics — is to provide his client with significant leverage.
The ICC application does just that. It attempts to show that Dr T is concerned with the May 19 crackdown and wants to see Abhisit held to account for the killing of red shirt protesters. That should help buoy red shirt support for Thaksin. The application will also have seriously rattled Abhisit’s cage (and that of the Dems/Army). Even if there’s little chance of anything coming of it, no one wants to see an ICC application naming them as an alleged human-rights abuser.
I’m interested in how the application process works, though. I’m sure, as you say, there are a lot of independent people working on this, but I would hazard a guess that conducting preliminary investigations, collection of witness statements etc, to support the application is a timely and costly process. I assume that this is being conducted primarily by RA with the process being bankrolled by Thaksin.
If the above is true — it’s only a theory, but one which I think holds water — then could the whole application process be stalled if the financial plug was pulled?
If so, then this brings us back to the issue of leverage. RA/Thaksin would have the power to stall the application, so assuming there was a reasonable chance of Abhisit being prosecuted, they could prevent that from happening. I’m sure Thaksin is still bruised from Abhisit’s government cancelling his passport etc, and I’m sure he wants to get even with as many people as possible over the seizing of his money; Abhisit would be a good place to start. But if you fire your only magic bullet, then you essentially lose your leverage (not to say the agreements/deals with the army would be forfeit).
So if the ICC application is more than a mere smokescreen and could be something that lead to a full investigation, trial and prosecution; would Thaksin benefit more from seeing the entire process through to prosecution, or would he get more from pulling the financial plug, at least temporarily? One could argue convincingly that he would benefit more from keeping the wildcard in the pack. What better mechanism to ensure the “amart” holds to there side of the bargain than the proverbial sword of Damocles in the form of a tangible ICC prosecution?
Finally, you said: “What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith.”
How do you “know” that? Have you met RA and discussed the matter with him? If so, how many times? As a journalist, and someone who says they think Thaksin himself should be held to account for his alleged human rights abuses, I’m sure you asked many searching questions on this matter. How did he convince you that he was working in “good faith”?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Thanks Steve. My mistake.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
I join others in thanking/congratulating Nick for once again providing an invaluable visual and verbal commentary largely absent elsewhere.
One aspect caught my eye particularly – though it seems to have attracted little attention in comments so far.
“The real surprise of the day, and a completely new development in the ongoing conflict scenario, took place in front of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, where the Democrat Party held a rally with about 2000 protesters with the light blue headbands that appeared first a few days before under ['among', presumably] the Mulicolored on 30 May 2012. The new protest group is named ‘Sai Loh Fah’ – the lightening rod. The Democrat Party has now made the transition into directly commanding their own street protest group.”
There was a suggestion* that the Dems bussed in supporters from the south to bolster PAD numbers in BKK – though nothing to substantiate it. The reference above to “Sai Loh Fah” adherents being among the “multi-coloured” (themselves usually viewed as an adjunct of the PAD main body) now does seem to lend credibility to the suggestion – or, at least, that new-minted Dem-sponsored protesters are now actively joining the (previously) usual suspects.
“One of the party’s senior politicians explained to me the reasons for this change in strategy is that all media is closed to them now, that inside parliament they are not allowed to finish their speeches, and that they needed a channel to reach the people. Several Democrat MPs said that they intend to continue and build up this street protest group.”
That a senior Dem could (presumably with a straight face?) claim “that all media is closed to them now” is truly astounding – even by established Dem-speak standards. Both the Post and Nation groups’ publications (English and Thai language) routinely act as Dem cheerleaders and apologists – to say nothing of much of the rest of the Thai language media. Add to this that the Dems have now set up** a “media monitoring group” and you start to get a very clear picture of a Dem party that, while a] portraying a Parliament no longer under their control as being pretty much a pointless exercise, now b] claims (despite all the plentiful evidence to the contrary) that they simply can’t get a hearing in the media. Ergo – we can only “reach the people” by taking to the streets….. which, BTW, we’ll also plaster with billboards accusing the government of things that even we wouldn’t try to make stand up in a serious forum.
I suspect I’m not the only one struck by the jaw-dropping irony of such imaginatively engineered posturing.
* https://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/politics-yellow-shirts-protesters-says-reconciliation-bill-destroys-thai-king-power/
** http://asiancorrespondent.com/83758/thailands-democrat-party-to-monitor-media/
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“The Democrat Party has now made the transition into directly commanding their own street protest group – ‘Sai Loh Fah’ .”
Always the copycat, the miserable Democrats. But still a long way to go before matching the Red Shirts in numbers, a long way to go before ‘Sai Loh Fah’ villages. Will we see the ‘Sai Loh Fah’ marching to Bangkok with petrol-filled bottles too (hey if the Reds could do it, why not?).
I already asked this question to Spooner: Could the Democrats storm troopers (with the offensive SS) be any match to Thaksin’s Black Shirts in any Bangkok street fights – the Black Shirts grenade launching and arson torching skills considered?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Nick. Thanks for your reply about your gear. Sounds like you keep things practical and lightweight on the street. Your images look great.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew Spooner #26. I would seriously doubt Robert Amsterdam’s good faith in filing the case against Abhisit with the ICC, if by good faith you mean that he thought there was a snowball in hell’s chance of the case ever being heard. Nevertheless, it has served the interests of both Amsterdam and his employer admirably. At a critical moment, the filing provided a great talking point and motivation for red shirts without legal training who might actually have been persuaded the case was viable and it presumably generated plenty of fees for Amsterdam. The attempt to use Abhisit’s British citizenship by birth as a back door route to prosecution was tenuous to say the least and the main purpose was clearly to provide fodder for red shirt speakers to demonise him as a privileged farang who is remote from their problems. For Abhisit’s British citizenship to be of any use to Amsterdam the British government would have to consent the case which is as inconceivable as Montenegro consenting to an arraignment of Thaksin for complicity in murder at Tak Bai, the Kruesae Mosque and his other numerous human rights abuses.
Sadly none of these cases will ever be prosecuted anywhere or even properly investigated. To do so would create too much collateral damage in the senior ranks of the military and police and no politician, no matter how great his parliamentary majority, will ever dare take that risk.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
#29 Nick Nostitz
” was made aware by a friend that Sean Crispin was very angry about my comment about him in this article.
I apologize to Sean if this has hurt his feelings – it was only meant as a lighthearted joke, nothing else.”
Yeah…. l thought that was a bit jarring and off in an otherwise fascinating and detailed report.
On the non joke issues, the news of the Democrat ‘street’ crews is a weird one…. Not sure the Democrats do ‘street’ anything very well sadly…. It’s a large part of why they lost the last election…. Sniffy and disconnected best describes their last ‘street’ efforts……
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg
You’ve asked a lot of questions here and I am not sure I have time to answer them all.
As most of them relate to the ICC – and this is just a suggestion – why don’t you contact RA yourself and ask him these questions? I know that plenty of other people have – including mere bloggers like myself. He’s very approachable.
The ICC application is available online. I’ve read bits of it but never read the whole thing. It was filed in Jan 2011 and I think a couple more bits were filed afterwards but I am not 100% sure. All that’s in the public domain and has been for a while. So, the process is complete, and can’t have any plug pulled as you are suggesting. Also Mark is 100% UK national who was registered to vote. There’s a pic on RA’s site of his name on electoral roll from when he was at Oxford – you have to be UK citizen to be on there and you have to actively put your name forward. It’s not done for you.
As far as I understand it the next decision is with the ICC. Obviously if they do take it up Thaksin’s “money” will still have no bearing as it will be self-funded. They will then investigate and then decide to press charges at later date – I think that is how it goes.
There’d be no need for Thaksin to have any ad-hoc ICC arrangement set up against him if he has a Montenegrin citizenship as Steve points out – they are ICC signatories.
Why do I think it has been done in good faith? Cos the case is thorough, has been filed already, is backed by plenty of other people and has already had an impact. Will the ICC take it up? Less than 50/50 but it is still worth hoping for. Something had to be done and the truth committees set up by Abhisit, without power of subpoena are next to useless – which was his aim.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew #37
you have to be UK citizen to be on there and you have to actively put your name forward. It’s not done for you
That is not true. Many universities in the UK automatically register all students that live in university halls.
Here is a reference to such a practice”
http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6358-parties-push-for-student-voter-registration-to-revive-falling-electoral-rolls
At Edinburgh University, all students living in halls are automatically registered on the electoral role.
Here is a Malaysian that was registered by his UK university.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/26872
Abhisit was such a student and I am led to believe that Cambridge does this just like Edinburgh University. Being on the electoral roll proves nothing.
Certainly Amsterdam knows about the automatic registering of student living in university housing, but he failed to mention it didn’t he?
Andrew, that is what is called being disingenuous, something Amsterdam is a master of.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
John Smith
Universities do put names on the electoral rolls of people living in halls, that’s right.
But only British and Commonwealth students (Malaysia is Commonwealth). The universities use the nationalities that students use when they enrol to deduce if they are eligible to be placed on the roll or not.
You probably don’t realise that Commonwealth students would be able to vote in local UK elections so a Malaysian would, quite rightly , be included on the electoral roll. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voter-registration.
Thailand is not part of the Commonwealth so a Thai national wouldn’t be placed on the electoral roll.
Which means Abhisit used his British nationality to enrol at Oxford, something he stated he hadn’t done in the Thai Parliament.
John, those are called facts, something that scares the bejesus out of Mark.
As a side note I am now curious if Abhisit voted while at Oxford – which begs the next question, I wonder who for?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
John Smith
A small correction for my last comment – Commonwealth citizens resident in UK can vote in ALL elections, not just locals.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew, thanks again for your response. It’s a pity you didn’t have more time to go into how RA convinced you that his application was done in good faith.
You say the application has already had an impact, what would that impact be in real terms — ie, progress to the ICC launching an investigation?
The application from Amsterdam and Peroff is a curious document. It doesn’t appear to be written in a particularly legalistic manner, and reads like a combination of a policy document and a collection of witness testimony and expert statements.
This only leads me to re-assert my view that RA is acting in good faith towards his client, as is his duty. The content and preamble in particular are partisan. For example, this section:
THE RISE OF THAKSIN SHINAWATRA
Thaksin Shinawatra entered politics in 1994, serving a brief term as Foreign Minister and then twice as Deputy Prime Minister under different governments. On July 14, 1998, Thaksin founded the political party Thai Rak Thai, which went on to win the 2001 general elections in a landslide. After completing a full term in office as Thailand’s Prime Minister, something unprecedented in the country’s history, Thaksin further consolidated Thai Rak Thai’s dominance in the 2005 elections. Running on the strength of its administration’s accomplishments, Thai Rak Thai won three quarters of the seats in the House of Representatives, resulting in Thaksin’s reappointment as Prime Minister.
In response to the elected administration’s attempt to assert its control over the policymaking process and place the military under civilian control, domains traditionally reserved for unelected institutions, portions of Thailand’s Establishment lent their support to a campaign of street protests against the government, which called on the King and the military to intervene to unseat Thai Rak Thai’s government. Thaksin was accused of disloyalty to the monarchy, a charge habitually made in Thailand to discredit those who pose a threat to Establishment interests.
Controversy also arose over the Shinawatra family’s sale of Shin Corp, by then one of Thailand’s largest conglomerates. While Thaksin had divested his interest in Shin Corp before the 2001 elections, by transferring his shares to his two eldest children, in early 2006 the family sold its 49.6% stake in the company to Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s sovereign fund. Critics complained that Thaksin had sold national assets to a foreign country and alleged that the transaction had exploited a loophole in the law that saved the family from paying capital gains taxes. The timing of the sale was fortuitous for the opposition’s purposes, coming in advance of planned anti-Thaksin demonstrations in Bangkok. On February 4-5, 2006, fifty thousand protestors, led by activists who would later form the “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD), demanded Thaksin’s resignation. In response, Thaksin dissolved the House of Representatives and called an election for April 2, 2006. Boycotted by the opposition, the elections yielded another comfortable victory by Thai Rak Thai, but the courts subsequently threw out the results on dubious constitutional grounds. The Constitutional Court ordered a new round of voting, which were scheduled for October. As reports of a possible coup began to emerge, a car packed with seventy kilograms of explosives was discovered near Thaksin’s residence.
THE 2006 COUP
On September 19, 2006, while Thaksin was attending a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, military forces took control of Bangkok. The junta, led by the Commander in Chief of the Army, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, came to be known in English as the Council for Democratic Reform (“CDR”). The generals justified the illegal seizure of power by citing “disunity” among the Thai people, “signs of rampant corruption and malfeasance,” and “interference” in the activities of independent state agencies.1 General Sonthi took complete control of the government and laid the groundwork for the restoration of the military’s longstanding political role. He abrogated the 1997 Constitution and abolished the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Council of Ministers and the Constitutional Court. He vested the duties of the Prime Minister in the leader of the CDR (i.e. himself) and announced that the scheduled general elections would be postponed for a year. The CDR also imposed a strict ban on any political gathering of five or more people.
Of course, I’m not saying that the application should hammer Thaksin at all. But the above only provides the most cursory, one-sided accounts of what led to the coup etc.
There is no justification for the coup, but in a document which forms a legal application to the ICC one would perhaps expect a relatively balanced portrayal of the facts.
The document cites the key reason for the formation of the PAD and establishment support for the PAD in 2006, as a response to “the elected administration’s attempt to assert its control over the policymaking process and place the military under civilian control”.
It all paints Thaksin in a rather favorable light. There is none of the context of corruption, human rights abuses, weakening of constitutional checks and balances and intimidation of the media which served as the initial catalyst for people to take to the streets in 2005, before the Shin Corp deal took place.
The anti-monarchy narrative was developed and strengthened from 2006 onwards.
Of course, one would not expect a paid counsel/lobbyist to act in bad faith and against the best interests of its client (Dr T). But this application says it is compiled on behalf of the UDD, so to whom is this “good faith” being directed?
Do you think that such a cursory, partisan preamble would only serve to strengthen or undermine the entire application?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“Which means Abhisit used his British nationality to enrol at Oxford, something he stated he hadn’t done in the Thai Parliament “
What he likely did, was used Thai as his “National Identity” then also claimed dual UK/Thai citizenship has allowed in the application form.
http://www.ucas.ac.uk/guidedtour/english/additionalinfo
Because of that, the university added his name to the roll. There is no proof he ever voted.
I do wonder what his immigration status was during that time. He had to have had a passport to leave the UK and nobody as found any proof he ever got a British one, so it is likely he was on Thai passport with an indefinite leave to stay and was considered on “Home Status” for fee purposes.
Abhisit has reluctantly admitted to being a dual citizen but I still think that Amsterdam’s ICC application is just a PR stunt (and a very good one). Searching the ICC site gets no results for “Abhisit” and there is no mention of any investigation about Thailand.
To me this is little different then the Interpol warrant for Thaksin. When the ICC accepted the application, they did the same thing Interpol did, they said “ok” and knowing it was politically motivated did nothing.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
What Abhisit actually said was that he didn’t use his British nationality at Oxford to take advantage of lower fees for domestic students. This was a red herring because UK citizens are only eligible for the domestic student fees, if they can prove they have a family home in the UK. Nationality is not the criterion and foreign residents of the UK can be eligible for the domestic fees. It is address of permanent residence where kids go in the school holidays that counts and Abhisit’s was clearly in Thailand as his parents had moved back long before he went to Oxford. I am sure he would have used a British passport to stay in the UK rather than go through all the hassles of getting visas but he probably let it lapse after going into politics. Incidentally his daughters must also be British because their father is British other than by descent. Anyway it is irrelevant because the British government would never sanction a prosecution of Abhisit in the ICC for acts committed in Thailand as prime minister of Thailand on the flimsy grounds that he happens to also be a British citizen.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
John Smith
The only way St Johns College would’ve added Mark to the roll is if he had proven his right to vote.
I called them and asked them.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
c35
“For Abhisit’s British citizenship to be of any use to Amsterdam the British government would have to consent the case… “
c44
“Anyway it is irrelevant because the British government would never sanction a prosecution of Abhisit in the ICC for acts committed in Thailand as prime minister of Thailand on the flimsy grounds that he happens to also be a British citizen.”
I’ve seen nothing in the Rome Statute that requires a member state to grant case by case “consent” or “sanction” for the ICC to proceed with prosecution of one of that state’s nationals. Subject to the ICC’s other case criteria (complementarity etc) being met, member states grant jurisdiction to the ICC from the time of signing/ratifying the treaty – as specified in
Article 12
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
If you know – rather than suppose – different, please point out the relevant section.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg
A very simple rule is that a lawyer has to act in the interests of their clients. The other side need to put their case forward themselves. As I pointed out Dems/Abhisit could’ve put forward a counter case against Thaksin via the ICC. Ask them why they haven’t.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Marteau
Sorry but you’re wrong. The UK has no veto over the ICC.
If the ICC decide to conduct an investigation into Mark, the only way the UK could stop it is if they investigate him instead.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Irreconcilable differences are just too deep, the hurts and wounds still too fresh, and the distrust unshakeable that the Thaksin-Yingluck resort to ‘reconciliation games’ is bound to fail. It was very stupid of Thaksin-Yingluck to think that Thaksin could ever be amnestied.
Two people in Thailand must reconcile to the fact that they could never ever again be Prime Minister of Thailand: Thaksin Shinawatra and Abhisit Vejajiva.
Thaksin’s resume of criminal misconducts (the Black Shirts terror run in Year2010 the most despicable of all) are just too long and many Thais demand that Thaksin be held accountable. And Abhisit Vejajiva had been ‘tagged’ as ordering the ‘massacre’ of the Red Shirts followers in May2010 . . . and it is irrelevant whether Abhisit acted legally or otherwise.
Quality comment or not?
1
0
C49.
The question then arises why do the Dems keep Abhisit as their leader?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew
“A very simple rule is that a lawyer has to act in the interests of their clients.”
Yes. I’ve made this point several times. So you agree then that while the application is on behalf of the UDD, A&P’s actual client is Thaksin, so the lawyers will be acting in Thaksin’s best interest. Is that right?
“The other side need to put their case forward themselves. As I pointed out Dems/Abhisit could’ve put forward a counter case against Thaksin via the ICC. Ask them why they haven’t.”
Well there are two obvious reasons. First, the application is a bogus and cynical PR exercise. Second, no Thai government is ever going to ask the ICC to investigate anything. Why hasn’t the PTP-led administration invited the ICC to investigate? Surely they would have done if Thaksin’s motivations for supporting the application were sincere.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg
I think you need to raise the point about if RA is representing the UDD or Thaksin with them and not me.
I believe some people within the PTP administration have seriously considered invoking Article 12 (3) but are waiting for this initial process to play out.
Is the application a cynical and bogus PR exercise? I don’t think it is and, as I’ve said before, the ICC would’ve rejected it months ago if it was. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter but, for me, the only people who really matter, at this point, are the ICC.
I’m sure if they decide to reject it on the grounds it was “bogus” they will certainly say so.
But, if they accept it? What then?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg lowe – 51
The logic is, if the filing is just a PR stunt then the Abhisit, the dem and their sponsors have nothing to worry about, as it is just a PR stunt.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Dear Greg,
As Andrew Spooner suggested earlier, why not ask Robert Amsterdam directly.
Better than going for obvious reasons based on suppositions, I think.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
As per a subject the Thai Dems have sorted to use street mobs for their political gain, just like the PAD and PTP, I believe both the multicolored and Lightening rod are their encompassed political machines. Mor Thul is definitely a Dems’ street canvasser disguised as a royalist, formerly White-shirts with no other affiliation.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
” . . . why do the Dems keep Abhisit as their leader?” – (#50)
The Democrats will probably keep Abhisit as their leader a while longer while Thaksin-Yingluck continue on with their stupid ‘reconciliation’ charade. But perhaps sooner, rather than later, the Democrats would realize that Abhisit V. as their leader will foment animosity from the Northeastern region . . . and thus Abhisit Vejajiva’s ‘polarizing’ image cancels himself out from the Thai Prime Minister’s chair.
Unlike the Peau Thai Party, the Democrats are capable of making a transition to a new leader.
The Peau Thai Party on the other hand, conceived to serve the interests and priorities of the Shinawatra family, will merrily on continue with their Red and Black shirts distraction of mobs shock-and-awe . . . to coerce the non-Reds to submit to that very repulsive idea of Thaksin amnesty.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
C56. It doesnt matter who the PTP leader is as they have shown they can repeatedly win elections, and what their motivation is becomes irrelevant as people clearly support it. However, it is just ridiculous for a party that is a serial loser to keep a leader who is hated in regions they need to win seats to assume power.
The only conclusions are that either the Democrats are all morons (higly unlikely), that their party will be ripped apart by infighting if the hated one is removed (possible as the southern controlling faction despise Korn), that they have no talent (well PTP have shown a stuffed toy can win elections), they are just an incredibly arrogant part of the elite that does what they want without consideration for anyone (totally true) or that they know the hated one will at some stage be returned to power by another coup of some kind with another judicial one looking the most likely now, and that the leaders of smaller parties that also hate Abhisit and would rather never work with him will once again be pressured into returning him to the seat of power.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Vichai N:
One of the problems the royalist/”Thai Democrat”/generals group has when dealing with the question of whether or not Thaksin will get or “deserves” to get some kind of amnesty, is that just about everybody knows at some level, conscious or unconscious, that while Thaksin may or may not have been “guilty” of various corruption and “crimes”, the actual case he’s been “convicted and sentenced to 2 years”, ie., the Ratchadapisek land acquisition-at-public-auction by his wife that he was required to sign his name on as her legal husband (unlike Sutthep who is not the “legal” husband of his very-active-in-business wife of some years for instance) is complete BS/nonsense, not “Rule of Law/Impartial Justice” at all, which is one reason Interpol and all the governments in the world have never taken the so-called “conviction” seriously and never honored all the many requests from the Abhisi/Kasit group to arrest and deport Thaksin back to Thailand.
Re: the so-called “policy corruption” case in which Thaksin’s one+ billion dollars was expropriated, despite the fact that he owned his mobile phone company and had this value prior to becoming Prime Minister, that process was also deeply flawed, biased, politicized and unclear, so much so that the same process could be applied to almost any of the leaders and officials who have ruled Thailand, including the Abhisit/Korn/Generals who ruled from the 2006 coup thru the recent election.
So the actual question in regard to an “amnesty” which includes Thaksin is, has he actually been convicted of anything in a Free, Fair, Transparent and Rule of Law trial, and if he has not, why shouldn’t he get an amnesty and be allowed to return to Thailand?
If the only reason is that certain powerful royalists and generals don’t “like” him, that is hardly a reason based on any of the actual “legal” processes and rights of someone who is a Thai citizen.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
#57
“It doesnt matter who the PTP leader is as they have shown they can repeatedly win elections, and what their motivation is becomes irrelevant as people clearly support it.”
This is nonsense….. It matters very much who their (real) leader is. The people voted for a man, not a party, nor the man’s sister….. The PTP have not won repeated elections. How many elections have they won? Thakisn Shinawatra has won repeated elections using a number of political parties as his vehicle.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Vichai N is right. If the ammart want to install their own Prime Minister I think they will chose a different ‘good man’ to Abhisit next time.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Nobby K @#60 – Chuan LeekPai rides again ???
Quality comment or not?
0
0
c60
Well, there is an obvious candidate waiting in the Dem wings – Deputy Leader Korn. On the plus side, there’s his conspicuous (and some would say anything but accidental) absence from at least public involvement in the 2010 events. On the minus side, he’s said to be very unpopular among southern Dems – which these days means most Dems.
Then again, there’s his recent bizarre letter* to Bkk Post (previously rehearsed in a string of Tweets). Too much of it to deconstruct fully here, but a few elements deserve to be highlighted.
“The government should do away with the amnesty bills, stop red gatherings…” [So, goodbye to a couple of items guaranteed by the constitution]
“In return the Democrats will stop our political rallies and we can help set a new tone of peace and reconciliation with the people, the media and the community radio stations. “ [Sounds perilously close to a classic protection racket approach]
“If the government succeeds in solving the country’s problems and the people continue to vote for a Pheu Thai government (and the Democrats keep coming in second in the ballots) then that is fine with us.” [You promise? That last part must have many really wondering if Korn has totally lost it. Never mind politicians, even J.P. Morgan's boardrooms don't hold with that kind of talk]
And to close:
“Let’s all stop the politics, let’s stop all the mobilisation and let’s all start afresh by giving real reconciliation and the rule of law a chance.” [Fairly clear why he didn't open with that first phrase - very few would have bothered reading any further]
* http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/297248/we-can-work-together
Quality comment or not?
0
0
If OWWB is right about the PTP, then the same is also true for the Democrat Party. They are a proxy for a man too, although he comes with considerable family baggage. But I guess OWWB could just be wrong.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
#63 Ralph
“If OWWB is right about the PTP, then the same is also true for the Democrat Party.”
That’s a little simplistic Ralph… The main part of the success of TRT/PPP/PTP is the fact that people know who they are voting for…. And it wasn’t Chalerm Yubamrung…. Part of the failure of the Democrats is to do with lack of cohesion and a complete lack of purpose.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
The reason why I have no interest in putting any questions to RA is becuase I’m specifically interested in Andrew Spooner’s position here.
Spooner has taken a huge amount of time to launch attacks on a number of journalists, activists, academics, commentators, NOGs etc because they refuse to use his approved terminology or toe a given politcal line or agenda. He comes across in a very high-minded manner on these issues — kind of like a knight on a shining white horse — but he becomes very uncomfortable when his writing and commentary is held to a similar level of scrutiny.
Andrew has said he “knows” Amsterdam’s application to the ICC was done in good faith. (I’m not bothered by Amsterdam he is doing a job he is paid to do by Thaksin.) I asked Andrew how he knew this, how many times he had met with Amsterdam to discuss the matter and what Amsterdam said to him to convince him that the application was made in good faith. Andrew refuse to answer this in a convincing way, as is his habit when he’s pulled up on specific points.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Perhaps David(#58) if Thaksin is “innocent” of all charges as you claim, you could explain how three of three of his lawyers working on his corruption charge ended up being convicted for sending a cash-filled pastry box to court officials.
If you could explain that, I’ll take your word for it that Beloved Red Leader Thaksin is really truly absolutely definitely innocent of all Thai judicial charges. Honest!
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Greg Lowe
“I’m specifically interested in Andrew Spooner’s position here.”
What? You think my position on RA’s work is more important than his views on his own work?
Seems a bit odd to me.
The guy is very approachable as I’ve said.
“Andrew refuse [sic] to answer this in a convincing way, as is his habit when he’s pulled up on specific points.”
If you think I am so important – perhaps, in your view, more important than RA himself? – you can interview me anytime you want via email, Skype, telephone or face to face – asiaprovocateur@gmail.com. Publish it where you want – your blog maybe? You can ask me any question you want and I will do my best to answer.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
SteveCM
I’ve met Korn a couple of times and know some people very close to him.
Korn is certainly smart, erudite and articulate but I am not sure he is that much of a politician. A technocrat, yes, but he seems to lack any “political ambition” or nous.
What is strange is that he has some good ideas – he spoke to me once of a “living wage” and I know he was interested in a property and land tax as a redistributive device.
These are progressive policies in my view yet they get drowned out in Abhisit’s headlong charge into electoral oblivion.
Unfortunately for him, Korn is now so closely associated to Abhisit that he is tainted in the eyes of the Thai electorate. His letter you reference above shows how much of Abhisit’s Kool Aid he’s now drunk and how detached he’s becoming from his responsibilities.
Thailand’s democracy needs better than this – it needs a good strong opposition, that is committed to democratic means to hold PTP to account.
At the moment the Dems are stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle. They can’t win an election because they are so out of touch/weak/badly-led which means they can’t mount a decent parliamentary opposition, which then means they rely on an alliance with anti-democratic forces, which just makes them more unpopular and so on and so on.
And the prognosis isn’t good. A party whose leadership don’t care if they finish 2nd could also soon be finishing 3rd or even 4th. The Dems are on a terminal decline at present and it’s not good for Thailand or Thai democracy.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Vichai N,
Thaksin’s lawyers got convicted for sending a routine grease payment to the corrupt justices because they were Thaksin’s lawyers.
The thousands of other grease payments doubtlessly passed through as usual.
While I forget the amount of the funds found in Thaksin’s donut box, it certainly wasn’t enough to impact the court decision on the case. The purpose of the bribe was much more likely to move a court date forward.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
“While I forget the amount of the funds found in Thaksin’s donut box, it certainly wasn’t enough to impact the court decision on the case.” – Hoyt
Enlightening response from a true Thaksin believer! The amount of the Thaksin bribe through his lawyers was Baht 2.0 million by the way. And out of curiousity Leah Hoyt, how much higher should the bribe had been “to impact the court decision . . .”?
Do you all Thaksin lovers think like Hoyt? Every Thaksin ‘honest mistake’ at or below a certain amount explainable as no more than trivial misdemeanor?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
One correction – it seems that “Thunderbolt” is the correct English language name for the Democrat Party’s protest group, and not “Lightening Rod”. Yesterday on their stage this name was mentioned by a speaker.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Boy, Vichai, you are getting desperate. We all know the last resort of the right wingers without an argument is to accuse people of being Thaksin apologists, but rarely is it so blatant.
I am not a Thaksin fan in any way. I would love to see him actually charged with the crimes I am sure he has committed (as per david #58), not a bunch of silly misdemeanors.
But when you have the level of corruption going on in Thailand and you want to persecute on person for a few pretty missteps, when he and everyone else appears to be guilty of much bigger things, you can’t claim the moral high ground.
What do you have to say to that Aphisit lover?
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Leah
In comment #17 I refer to a recent Bangkok Pundit post where he points out that in any reconciliation plan Thaksin might be likely to re-face the charges he was originally prosecuted under by the illegal military-constituted court.
What the PADocrat commentators seem to miss is that it isn’t Thaksin that comes off the worst from all these illegal, army-backed actions but Thailand, Thai democracy and the rule of law.
To bring Thaksin and all other parties and actors to account Thailand needs more of the latter two, not an abrogation of them.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Leah Hoyt #69. Would you regard it as acceptable if he admitted that he tried to pay a bribe of 2 million to move a court date then? If that were indeed the case, how much was he offering to get acquitted? The problem might have been that his stinginess prevented him from offering to pay the larger amounts in cash and his offer of jam tomorrow was regarded as an acceptable credit risk by prudent judicial gentlemen. I wonder what compensation the two donut box lawyers were paid for actually serving six months in the slammer for the Boss. One of them was apparently very generous in providing free legal advice to other prisoners.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Oooops. I didn’t realize that Hoyt, like Spooner, and many others at NM winking at the “Thaksin misdemeanors” are in fact “no Thaksin lover”. Sorry . . . honest mistake.
But I guess if Hoyt and Spooner are ‘not lovers or friends of Thaksin’, they must not be ‘true Reds’ either. Is there at least one NM reader who will not be embarrassed or humiliated to admit that he/she ‘loves Thaksin’?
But Hoyt said: ” . . I would love to see him (Thaksin) actually charged with the crimes I am sure he has committed not a bunch of silly misdemeanors.” Well Hoyt please do tell what those ‘Thaksin crimes he has committed that he should be charged’ are. Because personally this Abhisit-loving Vichai believes those ‘silly misdemeanors’ that Thaksin had been convicted of, and many others pending (including: policy corruption, electoral fraud, terrorism, Rachadipisek land deal, tax issues, etc.), committed while he was Thailand’s Prime Minister mind you, could NOT be easily dismissed as ‘silly’ or ‘misdemeanors’.
Please do tell Hoyt what those ‘Thaksin crimes he has committed that he should be charged’ are . . . you believe more heinous than those pending ‘silly misdemeanors’.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Guys Im sure we can agree that Thaksin should be chraged with a bunch of things. However, are Abhisit and Suthep going to have to face a little justice too? How about al those who conduct coups and overthrow the system. Right now we see a legislature being hauled in front of a court on allegations they may have intent to overthrow the system, and yet neither court nor media see the obvious joke that those who did it with evidence to show get off with impunity.
It is only going to end in tears if only Thaksin gets prosecuted while others wander around free. Either everyone gets amenstied or everyone gets charged and goes through a fair and free court system that the people of the country have faith in, and we have to bear in mind that last time the people’s faith in the constitutional court was polled 57% had none.
Lots of issues here for the Thai people to resolve in a way that is acceptable to them.
Quality comment or not?
0
0