Thread: Thailand’s anti-democracy protests should provoke a harsh rebuke from the U.S.

The Post’s View

Thailand’s anti-democracy protests should provoke a harsh rebuke from the U.S.
Editorial Board
Thursday, January 16

POPULAR DEMONSTRATIONS against democracy are becoming an unfortunate trend in developing countries where elections have challenged long-established elites. The latest case is Thailand, where thousands of people took to the streets Monday to demand that the country’s freely chosen government step down, that an unelected council take its place and that elections scheduled for next month be canceled. The protesters’ strategy appears to be to disrupt Bangkok to the point at which the government will feel compelled to resign or be removed by the military.

Similar tactics have succeeded in bringing down two previous governments led by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters since 2006, while a third was forced out by a dubious court decision. This time, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Mr. Thaksin’s sister, is standing firm, as she should. But she could use more support from the United States in rejecting an undemocratic outcome to the crisis.

Ironically, what amounts to a coup attempt is being supported by many in the opposition Democratic Party. The party’s problem with democracy stems from its failure to win an election since 2001, when Mr. Thaksin’s movement first surged to power. The Democrats represent Bangkok’s middle and upper classes and the traditional business establishment linked to the royal family. Mr. Thaksin, a billionaire businessman who now lives in exile, is a populist who draws support from previously disenfranchised Thais — the poor in urban areas and the rural northeast. While he did abuse power and commit human rights abuses when he was in office, his governments were freely and fairly elected, as was Ms. Yingluck’s.

In a decade of political and street conflicts, the Thaksin movement has seemed to mature: Ms. Ying[at]luck’s administration was proceeding relatively smoothly until she attempted to pass an amnesty bill through parliament that would have allowed her brother to return home. The opposition, meanwhile, has grown more radical. No longer do its leaders claim, as they once did, to be liberal democrats who seek only to correct Mr. Thaksin’s abuses. Now they aim explicitly at installing a regime that would empower a minority while seeking the “eradication” from politics of Mr. Thaksin and his family.

Opposing such an agenda ought to be an easy call for the United States, which has close economic and security relations with Thailand. But as was the case when Egyptians sought to provoke a coup against their elected government last summer, the Obama administration’s response has been weak. A State Department spokeswoman called Monday for the crisis to be resolved through a “democratic process” and praised the government’s “restraint” in responding to the demonstrators.

The administration has not, however, made clear publicly that a coup — whether by the military or the street mobs — would be unacceptable to the United States or that it would result in a suspension of aid and security cooperation. U.S. law mandates such a cutoff, but since the administration declined to observe the statute following Egypt’s military coup in July, Thailand’s anti-democracy militants may be emboldened to believe that they, too, will be tolerated by the Obama administration. They shouldn’t be. As has been the case in Cairo, the victory of the anti-democracy forces would only lead to more violence and instability.

washingtonpost.com

Complete statement from US Ambassador Thailand. The usual diplo speak.

"The United States strongly supports democratic institutions and the democratic process in Thailand, a long-time friend and ally. Prime Minister Yingluck has called for elections as a way forward amid ongoing political tensions and demonstrations. We encourage all involved to resolve political differences peacefully and democratically in a way that reflects the will of the Thai people and strengthens the rule of law."

What if anything is being said behind closed doors is as usual not for public disclosure.

Indeed a very bland utterance from the suit .

It's none of the US's business.

Your OP prompted me to look at other "western" Embassy sites. Pretty much the same diplo speak from all.

After the last coup some military aid to Thailand was cut. Not much. Amounted to a slap on the wrist.

Originally Posted by barbaro

It's none of the US's business.

Agree. Not saying they should here but US has rebuked several countries where it was non of their business.

Originally Posted by Norton

Your OP prompted me to look at other "western" Embassy sites. Pretty much the same diplo speak from all.

Game has changed , for the worse , the almighty dollar overrides all

It's not as if this is the first experience that Uncle Sugar has had with said Thai revolts/rebellions....the underlining of rhetoric will be the usual spin.

Certainly, since the late 1940s, the surreptitious contemporary history of Thai-US relations is one to be glanced over. We know what the long-standing policy of the US is towards Thailand.

*wink-wink-nudge*

^^^^^^ Agreed, Barbaro.


To some, democracy begins and ends at the ballot box, where supposed "free and fair" election takes place.

What the hell is free and fair about an election that's loaded by the rulers of the day to include only the two most powerful political groups in the land?

Free choice?

Not on your nelly, mate.

A free and fair election, a vote freely cast would be a vote for whatever option the voter wishes for, including "toffees".

Until the populace wakes up to the fact that they're being manipulated and divided and ruled into choosing the better of two evils, not having a real free choice of government, any state so dictated to will only collapse into just another corrupt phase of an older but more cynical form of dominance by a gang of damned criminals we sometimes call politicians.

Democracy?

Bollix, it's never existed, and the bloody hide of America demanding that others follow a US approved pattern of so called democracy is simply laughable, if it weren't criminally outrageous.

Thailand: Wall Street to the Rescue
Tony Cartalucci
January 16, 2014

Wall Street's Washington Post condemns protesters in Bangkok - silently complicit with regime's terror campaign



An editorial board piece in the Washington Post titled, “Thailand’s anti-democracy protests should provoke a harsh rebuke from the U.S.,” states in no uncertain terms that the US should condemn ongoing protests against unelected dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his nepotist-appointed proxy regime led by his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. The Washington Post argues:

Popular demonstrations against democracy are becoming an unfortunate trend in developing countries where elections have challenged long-established elites. The latest case is Thailand, where thousands of people took to the streets Monday to demand that the country’s freely chosen government step down, that an unelected council take its place and that elections scheduled for next month be canceled. The protesters’ strategy appears to be to disrupt Bangkok to the point at which the government will feel compelled to resign or be removed by the military.

Similar tactics have succeeded in bringing down two previous governments led by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters since 2006, while a third was forced out by a dubious court decision. This time, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Mr. Thaksin’s sister, is standing firm, as she should. But she could use more support from the United States in rejecting an undemocratic outcome to the crisis.

Of course, nothing about the Washington Post’s comments is truthful.

While Thailand is technically under the premiership of Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, by his party’s own admission, Thaksin is still literally running the country. The election campaign slogan for the last general election in 2011 was literally, “Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Does,” Puea Thai being his political party. Forbes would report in their article, “Thaksin in Exile: Advising Sister, Digging for Gold,” that:

Regarding his behind-the-scenes role in the party and policy, he is not shy: “I am the one who thinks. Like our slogan during the campaign, Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts.”

The New York Times admitted in an early 2013 article titled, “In Thailand, Power Comes With Help From Skype,” that:

For the past year and a half, by the party’s own admission, the most important political decisions in this country of 65 million people have been made from abroad, by a former prime minister who has been in self-imposed exile since 2008 to escape corruption charges.

The country’s most famous fugitive,Thaksin Shinawatra, circles the globe in his private jet, chatting with ministers over his dozen cellphones, texting over various social media platforms and reading government documents e-mailed to him from civil servants, party officials say.

The NYT piece would also report:

“He’s the one who formulates the Pheu Thai policies,” said Noppadon Pattama, a senior official in Mr. Thaksin’s party who also serves as his personal lawyer. “Almost all the policies put forward during the last election came from him.”

Image: The New York Times openly admits that Thailand is currently run by unelected convicted criminal/fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra. Clearly any proxy government or elections in which it participates in are illegitimate by both Thai and international standards. Thaksin’s foreign ties are what have afforded him impunity regarding an otherwise cartoonish, 3rd world dictatorship.
….

There is no question that an accused mass murderer and convicted criminal hiding abroad from a 2 year jail sentence, multiple arrest warrants, and a long list of pending court cases, is illegally running Thailand by proxy. Being unelected, Thaksin Shinawatra is by all accounts a dictator, and his “government” a regime, however cleverly they try to dress it up.

Elections in any other nation on Earth, including the United States in which the Washington Post is based, featuring a convicted criminal openly running a contending party would be unacceptable – and in Thailand as well, they are equally unacceptable. Protesters therefore are standing up against overt criminality, not “against democracy.”

As reported many times before, current anti-regime protesters are not trying to end “democracy.” They are simply trying to end the abuse of the democratic process by an overt criminal. Elections must be carried only after Thaksin Shinawatra and his entire political machine have been safely and completely dismantled.

Washington Post Is Covering for Wall Street’s Proxy of Choice, the Shinawatras

Could the Washington Post not be aware of any of this? Could they have missed the New York Times and Forbes articles blatantly admitting the overt criminality and illegitimacy of the current proxy regime ruling Thailand? Does the Washington Post honestly believe a proxy regime openly run by a convicted criminal who was not on the ballot nor even in the country, constitutes a “freely chosen” and/or legitimate government?
Of course not.

In fact, the Washington Post’s own 2011 article titled, “Thaksin’s sister is front-runner to become Thai prime minister,” would openly admit the last general election was, “a referendum on Thaksin.”

Clearly, the Washington Post is intentionally deceiving readers to protect the Shinawatra regime in which the corporate-financier interests that steer Washington Post’s editorial board have invested heavily.

To see just how heavily invested Wall Street and Washington are in Thaksin Shinawatra and his proxy regime, one must consider over a decade of Thaksin Shianwatra’s servile obedience to these foreign interests:

• In the late 1990′s, Thaksin was an adviser to notorious private equity firm, the Carlyle Group. He pledged to his foreign contacts that upon taking office, he would still serve as a “matchmaker” between the US equity fund and Thai businesses.
• In 2001 he privatized Thailand’s resources and infrastructure including the nation’s oil conglomerate PTT - much to Wall Street’s delight.
• In 2003, he would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Thaksin would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.
• Also in 2004, Thaksin attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before the 2011 elections that saw Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of Thaksin’s “red shirt” “United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship” (UDD) in Washington DC.
• Since the 2006 coup that toppled his regime, Thaksin has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), and Robert Blackwill (CFR) of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR), Kobre & Kim, Bell Pottinger (and here). Currently,Robert Amsterdam, of the Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners, serves as both lobbyist for Thaksin Shianwatra as well as his “red shirt” mobs, the UDD.
• During the most recent political crisis, the Western media has lent its full support to defending the Thaksin regime against protesters, as can be seen in reports by the BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, CNN, theWall Street Journal, and now the Washington Post.

The Washington Post’s condemnation of what it outrageously calls “anti-democracy militants,” is in defense of a loyal proxy, not “democracy.” That the Washington Post would also defend the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood of Egyptalongside Thaksin Shinawatra in its latest editorial, is both telling and troubling.

While the Washington Post claims the US has done little to back the Muslim Brotherhood, sources indicate that a campaign of US-backed covert violence and terrorism is already underway to undermine the military government in Cairo. And while the Washington Post may publicly lament that Washington is not condemning harshly the protesters in Bangkok, we can be sure that covert support has already been ongoing for quite some time – just as rhetorical support from the likes of the Washington Post has.
Already, the only militancy seen, has been a nightly campaign of violence directed at, not by, the anti-regime protesters. That the Washington Post also omits this suggests silent complicity with the regime who is carrying out these acts of terror.

To ignore the greater geopolitical dimensions in which Thailand’s current political crisis is unfolding, would ultimately be folly.

globalresearch.ca

Two pithy comments in this NY Times article-
“This is the day when Thailand and the rest of the world saw the true face of the protest movement,”
&
there are no angels in the power struggle between the governing party and its opponents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/wo...land.html?_r=0

Suthep is a crazed megalomaniac, and his 'vision' nothing more than a gangster state.

So where does that leave the 'democrats'? They have let down their real supporters, Thailand, democracy, and themselves. No leadership, no vision, no policies, no integrity. Out with the old, in with the new.

Originally Posted by sabang

No leadership, no vision, no policies, no integrity.

I guess this contrast with the PT vision of kleptocracy,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I guess this contrast with the PT vision of kleptocracy

PT/Dems same same. Difference is PT wins elections and Dems lose. Rules and practices for winning are equal for both.

Only difference is PT has been running the kleptocracy since 2001. Has really pissed off the Dems.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I guess this contrast with the PT vision of kleptocracy

PT/Dems same same. Difference is PT wins elections and Dems lose. Rules and practices for winning are equal for both.

Only difference is PT has been running the kleptocracy since 2001. Has really pissed off the Dems.

see, that wasn't that difficult to see the truth

Sure, I agree- but the question must be asked, why? The answer is not to be found in baseless and spurious accusations, long since discredited, that it is because PT 'buys' elections.

Originally Posted by Mid

Thailand: Wall Street to the Rescue
Tony Cartalucci
January 16, 2014

Wall Street's Washington Post condemns protesters in Bangkok - silently complicit with regime's terror campaign



An editorial board piece in the Washington Post titled, “Thailand’s anti-democracy protests should provoke a harsh rebuke from the U.S.,” states in no uncertain terms that the US should condemn ongoing protests against unelected dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his nepotist-appointed proxy regime led by his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. The Washington Post argues:

Popular demonstrations against democracy are becoming an unfortunate trend in developing countries where elections have challenged long-established elites. The latest case is Thailand, where thousands of people took to the streets Monday to demand that the country’s freely chosen government step down, that an unelected council take its place and that elections scheduled for next month be canceled. The protesters’ strategy appears to be to disrupt Bangkok to the point at which the government will feel compelled to resign or be removed by the military.

Similar tactics have succeeded in bringing down two previous governments led by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters since 2006, while a third was forced out by a dubious court decision. This time, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Mr. Thaksin’s sister, is standing firm, as she should. But she could use more support from the United States in rejecting an undemocratic outcome to the crisis.

Of course, nothing about the Washington Post’s comments is truthful.

While Thailand is technically under the premiership of Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, by his party’s own admission, Thaksin is still literally running the country. The election campaign slogan for the last general election in 2011 was literally, “Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Does,” Puea Thai being his political party. Forbes would report in their article, “Thaksin in Exile: Advising Sister, Digging for Gold,” that:

Regarding his behind-the-scenes role in the party and policy, he is not shy: “I am the one who thinks. Like our slogan during the campaign, Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts.”

The New York Times admitted in an early 2013 article titled, “In Thailand, Power Comes With Help From Skype,” that:

For the past year and a half, by the party’s own admission, the most important political decisions in this country of 65 million people have been made from abroad, by a former prime minister who has been in self-imposed exile since 2008 to escape corruption charges.

The country’s most famous fugitive,Thaksin Shinawatra, circles the globe in his private jet, chatting with ministers over his dozen cellphones, texting over various social media platforms and reading government documents e-mailed to him from civil servants, party officials say.

The NYT piece would also report:

“He’s the one who formulates the Pheu Thai policies,” said Noppadon Pattama, a senior official in Mr. Thaksin’s party who also serves as his personal lawyer. “Almost all the policies put forward during the last election came from him.”

Image: The New York Times openly admits that Thailand is currently run by unelected convicted criminal/fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra. Clearly any proxy government or elections in which it participates in are illegitimate by both Thai and international standards. Thaksin’s foreign ties are what have afforded him impunity regarding an otherwise cartoonish, 3rd world dictatorship.
….

There is no question that an accused mass murderer and convicted criminal hiding abroad from a 2 year jail sentence, multiple arrest warrants, and a long list of pending court cases, is illegally running Thailand by proxy. Being unelected, Thaksin Shinawatra is by all accounts a dictator, and his “government” a regime, however cleverly they try to dress it up.

Elections in any other nation on Earth, including the United States in which the Washington Post is based, featuring a convicted criminal openly running a contending party would be unacceptable – and in Thailand as well, they are equally unacceptable. Protesters therefore are standing up against overt criminality, not “against democracy.”

As reported many times before, current anti-regime protesters are not trying to end “democracy.” They are simply trying to end the abuse of the democratic process by an overt criminal. Elections must be carried only after Thaksin Shinawatra and his entire political machine have been safely and completely dismantled.

Washington Post Is Covering for Wall Street’s Proxy of Choice, the Shinawatras

Could the Washington Post not be aware of any of this? Could they have missed the New York Times and Forbes articles blatantly admitting the overt criminality and illegitimacy of the current proxy regime ruling Thailand? Does the Washington Post honestly believe a proxy regime openly run by a convicted criminal who was not on the ballot nor even in the country, constitutes a “freely chosen” and/or legitimate government?
Of course not.

In fact, the Washington Post’s own 2011 article titled, “Thaksin’s sister is front-runner to become Thai prime minister,” would openly admit the last general election was, “a referendum on Thaksin.”

Clearly, the Washington Post is intentionally deceiving readers to protect the Shinawatra regime in which the corporate-financier interests that steer Washington Post’s editorial board have invested heavily.


To see just how heavily invested Wall Street and Washington are in Thaksin Shinawatra and his proxy regime, one must consider over a decade of Thaksin Shianwatra’s servile obedience to these foreign interests:

• In the late 1990′s, Thaksin was an adviser to notorious private equity firm, the Carlyle Group. He pledged to his foreign contacts that upon taking office, he would still serve as a “matchmaker” between the US equity fund and Thai businesses.
• In 2001 he privatized Thailand’s resources and infrastructure including the nation’s oil conglomerate PTT - much to Wall Street’s delight.
• In 2003, he would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Thaksin would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.
• Also in 2004, Thaksin attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before the 2011 elections that saw Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of Thaksin’s “red shirt” “United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship” (UDD) in Washington DC.
• Since the 2006 coup that toppled his regime, Thaksin has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), and Robert Blackwill (CFR) of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR), Kobre & Kim, Bell Pottinger (and here). Currently,Robert Amsterdam, of the Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners, serves as both lobbyist for Thaksin Shianwatra as well as his “red shirt” mobs, the UDD.
• During the most recent political crisis, the Western media has lent its full support to defending the Thaksin regime against protesters, as can be seen in reports by the BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, CNN, theWall Street Journal, and now the Washington Post.

The Washington Post’s condemnation of what it outrageously calls “anti-democracy militants,” is in defense of a loyal proxy, not “democracy.” That the Washington Post would also defend the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood of Egyptalongside Thaksin Shinawatra in its latest editorial, is both telling and troubling.

While the Washington Post claims the US has done little to back the Muslim Brotherhood, sources indicate that a campaign of US-backed covert violence and terrorism is already underway to undermine the military government in Cairo. And while the Washington Post may publicly lament that Washington is not condemning harshly the protesters in Bangkok, we can be sure that covert support has already been ongoing for quite some time – just as rhetorical support from the likes of the Washington Post has.
Already, the only militancy seen, has been a nightly campaign of violence directed at, not by, the anti-regime protesters. That the Washington Post also omits this suggests silent complicity with the regime who is carrying out these acts of terror.

To ignore the greater geopolitical dimensions in which Thailand’s current political crisis is unfolding, would ultimately be folly.

globalresearch.ca

Shouldn't surprise anyone...
Same as the old boss.

Thailand: US-backed Regime Using Terrorism Against Occupy Bangkok Protesters | Global Research


................................................


Letter to President Obama regarding Thailand's Political Crisis - A Response to Michael Turner

17 January 2014 at 03:21
President Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washing, D.C. 20500

17 January 2014

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing in response to Congressman Michael R. Turner's letter to you yesterday, urging you to publically voice opposition to the anti-government movement and support the election on 2 February 2014. With all due respect, Congressman Turner's letter is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of the Thai political crisis.

As a U.S. trained lawyer, and citizen of the U.S. and Thailand, I am pro-democracy. Indeed, I have often volunteered for voters' assistance groups to inform Americans on voting registration, necessary documents for voting, and finding the right precinct to ensure that their votes do get counted.

The anti-government protestors are also pro-democracy. The movement is not to rid Thailand of democracy. It is to rid Thailand of the most tyrannical and dictatorial regime in history. Throughout history, many dictators have been democratically elected. Saddam Hussein received 100% of the votes. Hugo Chavez, whom you publically called authoritarian, was also elected by the majority.

The Thaksin authoritarian government, elected through vote-rigging, proved to be the most corrupt and the gravest human rights violator. In order to fully appreciate the current political crisis, one must examine the telecommunications Tycoon' legacy. To name a few examples of Thaksin's egregious conducts:

• In February 2003, Thaksin launched a "war on drugs" campaign resulting in 2,800 extrajudicial killing in the span of three months. In 2007, official investigations concluded that more than half of those executed had no connections with drugs. The UN Human Rights Committee raised serious concerns yet perpetrators were never prosecuted.
• In 2004, Thaksin's security forces shot, suffocated or crushed to death 85 southern protestors in what is known as the Tak Bai massacre. Human Rights Watch has condemned this atrocity and urged independent criminal investigation but again, to no avail.
• According to Amnesty International, 18 human rights defenders were either assassinated or disappeared.
• Due to Thaksin's censorship and intimidation of the press, human rights violations remained unreported and any dissent was silenced.
• In an attempt to circumvent conflict of interest laws, Thaksin illegally transferred billions of baht in assets to his maids and drivers, without their knowledge.
• Thaksin aided his wife to purchase government land at a reduced rate of 1/3 in violation of the law prohibiting political leaders from engaging in business dealings with the government. Thaksin was consequently sentenced to two years in prison but fled the country and never served his sentence.
• Thaksin approved a US $127 million low-interest government loan to Myanmar's military-run government to purchase satellite services from his telecommunications business.
• During his tenure as prime minister, Thaksin sold his stakes in telecoms giant Shin Corp to Temasek holding, evading taxes worth $16.3 million.
• Thaksin's countless measures to benefit his telecommunications business prompted the Supreme Court to unanimously find him guilty of 4 counts of policy corruption and order seizure of $1.4 billion of his frozen $2.3-billion fortune.

These are just examples of the myriad ways in which Thaksin abused and robbed this country. Although in self-imposed exile, Thaksin continues to run Thailand and implement the policy of corruption through his sister. In a guised attempt to foster reconciliation, the current Thaksin regime passed the Amnesty Bill, designed to pardon protestors from all sides for engaging in political expression. At 4:25 am on a Friday night, the Thaksin-controlled parliament passed the final version of the bill that would now pardon all politicians ever charged or convicted of corruption since the coup. The revised bill also provided for the return of assets seized. To state the obvious, this law was passed solely to pave way for Thaksin's return as a free man with all his wealth restored.

In a ploy to control both the parliament and the senate, Thaksin's current government attempted to amend the senate structure and bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors. Eliminating this system would result in Thaksin's party controlling the legislative branch without any checks and balances. The Amnesty Bill or any other laws to enable Thaksin's corruption can then easily pass. Although the Constitutional Court struck down the senate-restructuring measure, Thaksin's government openly declared that it would defy the court's decision.

It is this blatant systematic policy of corruption and abuse of power solely for the benefit of Thaksin that fueled Thai citizens to stand up and say, enough is enough. The protestors want democracy. But first, Thaksin's dictatorship must be eradicated.

Over a decade of being under Thaksin's regime, one thing is clear. Our current democratic system has failed us. It has allowed for an authoritarian regime to usurp power and strip the nation's wealth. When a system accepts voter fraud and places corrupt politicians above the law, citizens must question and rise up against this broken system. The citizens are calling for reform. A true democracy with transparency, accountability, and most importantly, balance of power.

We want democracy. And it is through this civil disobedience that we will achieve it.

Sincerely,

Vanina Sucharitkul
cc: Congressman Michael R. Turner

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vanin...52128821423604


................................................


A response to Vanina Sucharitkul
Chan Nilgianskul
1 February 2014

(Note: This letter is a response to Vanina Sucharitkul’s letter to President Barack Obama. During the past few weeks, her letter was widely shared among the Thai users of social media. The content of Vanina’s letter can be found here or here. The content of Chan’s letter here is a shortened version of the full version that can be accessed here.)


Picture: Vanina Sucharitkul reading her letter on a PDRC stage.

Dear Vanina Sucharitkul,

I am writing this open letter in response to your own letter to President Barack Obama, dated January 17, 2014, regarding Congressman Michael R.Turner’s purported misunderstanding of the Thai political situation. It may well be true that non-Thais may find it more challenging to fully appreciate the current crisis, not having had the chance to grasp our complex history and socio-political structures. However, this is no excuse for blatant deceit and the shameless presentation of logical fallacies as fact. With all due respect, please keep in mind that you were writing to the President of the United States, not to one of the millions whistling here in Bangkok that may be easily swayed by your meaningless rhetoric.

You, my fellow citizen, are a disgrace not only to the legal profession but to humanity’s intellectual capacity. Allow me to walk you through your own key assertions.

1. “The movement is not to rid Thailand of democracy.”

I am assuming this “movement” of yours refers to the hilariously misnamed PDRC and their brainwashed supporters. Someone may claim that the PDRC are not trying to “get rid” of democracy, but no one, including you, can claim that they are not trying to suspend it (for an as yet unspecified length of time). Where would the proposed unelected “People’s Council” draw its democratic legitimacy from? Not the (referendum-approved) constitution. Not the electorate. From the righteousness (or lack thereof) of Mr. SuthepThaugsuban and his henchmen, perhaps?

2. “The Thaksin authoritarian government, elected through vote-rigging, proved to be the most corrupt and the gravest human rights violator.”

On the “vote-rigging”, I am not so sure what exactly you are referring to. If you mean actual stuffing of ballot boxes or “lights out” ballot box switching like in decades past, you clearly have not noticed the myriad of observers from all across the political spectrum who cram polling stations making sure these shenanigans do not occur. Either that or you’re again doing what you seem to do best – lying.

On the other hand, if you mean vote-buying, then I would like to give you some bad news – it doesn’t work that way. Very few serious political observers still believe that vote-buying can win an election in Thailand. Sure, it exists in pockets, sometimes as part of vain attempts by candidates to get points and other times as simply a tradition of patronage payments during election season. Crucially, vote-buying is not unique to Thaksin-leaning parties. In fact, several MP-elects from the Democrat Party were found guilty of electoral fraud and vote-buying even in the most recent election. I am not implying that any of this is acceptable, but I am merely pointing out that vote-buying is not the reason why Thaksin-leaning parties keep getting elected. Several former Thai Rak Thai MPs who had defected to smaller parties outspent the People’s Power Party several times over but still lost resoundingly in 2007. Even senior Democrat Party leaders such as Korn Chatikavanij and Alongkorn Ponlaboot have gone on record saying that money is no longer determinative of electoral success. A lengthier analysis can be found here.

3. “Thaksin aided his wife to purchase government land at a reduced rate of 1/3 in violation of the law prohibiting political leaders from engaging in business dealings with the government. Thaksin was consequently sentenced to two years in prison but fled the country and never served his sentence.”

For lack of a better word, what you are talking about is nothing short of a complete joke. The so-called Ratchadaphisek Land “controversy” is not so much a controversy as it is a result of a disgusting witch-hunt after the 2006 coup. The case was pushed forward by the military-appointed Assets Examination Committee (Read: Anti-Thaksin Committee). This was despite prior confirmation from the central Bank of Thailand, which supervised the land sale, that the deal was conducted properly. Thaksin’s wife Potjaman Shinawatra purchased the land in question from the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) via a public auction, as allowed under the law. The purchase price was 772 million baht, which was actually higher than the Land Department’s appraisal price at the time of approximately 700 million baht.

The “reduced rate” you are suggesting is with reference to the FIDF’s own purchase price for the land of 2 billion baht in 1995 from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities. The intentionally overpriced purchase occurred during a property market boom and went through as a mechanism to effectively bail out Erawan, which was facing liquidity issues. Perhaps someone should investigate the properness of that deal, rather than trying to put the blame on Thaksin?

Again, the purchase was legal. How idiotic would Potjaman have to be to make those bids if the law prohibited spouses of political leaders from participating? To be specific, the charges against Thaksin were based on Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act (NCCA), which specifies that “government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorization.” However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that “persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party”, in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula was the direct supervisor of the FIDF, not Thaksin. Furthermore, Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 specifically stated that the Prime Minister “did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF” and that “those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight, and regulations governing the agency.”

Even with such clear logical facts in their faces, the Supreme Court (which, by the way, lacks any democratic legitimacy) still had the nerve to claim that Thaksin was a “de facto” supervisor of the fund and sentence him to two years of imprisonment. One has to wonder what the point of having Section 4 of the NCCA is, if the court is to look at “de facto” supervision. Of course, this allegation of “de facto” supervision does not even hold water in this case, precisely due to Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942, as explained in the previous paragraph.

Following this conviction and his subsequent self-exile, Thaksin has claimed that this case was politically motivated. Given the information above, wouldn’t you agree?

4. “During his tenure as prime minister, Thaksin sold his stakes in telecoms giant Shin Crop to Temasek holding, evading taxes worth US$16.3 million.”

No taxes were evaded. The share sales to Temasek Holdings were conducted properly under Thai law and as per Revenue Department and Stock Exchange of Thailand regulations. Individuals (members of the Shinawatra and Damapong families, in this case) who conduct their transactions through the stock exchange are exempt from capital gains taxes. This was subsequently confirmed in a legal investigation conducted by the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission. It is also interesting to note that an almost identical legal structure was used in the sale of the country’s second largest operator, Total Access Communication (DTAC), to Norwegian firm Telenor, likewise tax-free but this time without any significant criticism. Again, it seems here that you are more interested in stirring up irrational nationalistic fervor and hate rather than providing a fundamentally sound account of what transpired. Rest assured; the US Embassy in Bangkok knows exactly what happened and will inform your President accordingly.

5. “Thaksin’s countless measures to benefit his telecommunications business prompted the Supreme Court to unanimously find him guilty of 4 counts of policy corruption and order [the] seizure of US$ 1.4 billion of his frozen US$ 2.3 billion fortune.”

I’m not sure which is more disturbingly amusing, these “policy corruption” allegations, or the Ratchadaphisek fiasco. To start off, “policy corruption” was simply invented by junta-supporters and their cronies after the 2006 coup because they couldn’t find a truly solid case that would be able to cripple Thaksin financially. It is a vague mixture of conflict of interest and moral accusations, all of which had no pre-coup legal basis whatsoever. Well-known social critic Bangkok Pundit tried to have a serious go at analyzing it here, but the absurdity quickly showed.

In particular, the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) drew its the authority to freeze Thaksin’s assets from citing Announcement No. 30 of the military junta. The “policy corruption” allegations against Thaksin depended almost entirely on wild extrapolations by the judiciary with regards to Thaksin’s “bad intentions,” and the usage of ex post facto, or retroactive, laws. Being the legal expert, you may wish to provide me with your own opinion on whether this should be allowed in any civilized society (except perhaps in cases of horrid crimes against humanity or genocide, such as during World War II). For reference, such laws are expressly forbidden in the United States by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

The facts are so obvious that even conservative newspaper The Nation described “policy corruption” as “a new, sophisticated form of official graft that works to shield the wrongdoers from prosecution due to its legality.” In essence, we must differentiate between what is illegal, and what is, for some, “undesirable.” Cases should be decided by courts of law, not courts of justice. Sure, one could argue that Thailand needed stricter laws regarding lobbying, conflicts of interest, blind management of politicians’ assets, and regulations to ensure a veil of ignorance for office holders. I for one will join you in calling for such measures to be implemented so that we can have a more transparent and accountable democracy. However, I will not join you in selectively punishing people whose actions (however unscrupulous) were legal at the time of occurrence. That would defeat the purpose of having laws altogether. We might as well have a “Council of Elders” of sorts and let them decide every case based on what they feel is just.

Now that we have gotten the legal technicalities out of the way, a natural question to ask, for our peace of mind, would be – “How did Thaksin’s telecommunications businesses actually fare during his tenure, given all the ‘countless measures’ that he allegedly used to benefit them?” The numbers speak for themselves here. As you noted, the Supreme Court chose to confiscate around US$ 1.4 billion of his fortune (the difference between the shares’ values on the day he took office and the values when they were sold to Temasek). However, the Courts failed to take into account that Shin shares gained 121% over the period, which was actually less than the benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) index gain of 128%. Some other blue-chip companies made even larger gains, such as Siam Cement (coincidentally 30% owned by the Crown Property Bureau), which gained 717% over the same period. You do the math.

6. “In a ploy to control both the parliament and the senate, Thaksin’s current government attempted to amend the senate structure and bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors. Eliminating this system would result in Thaksin’s party controlling the legislative branch without any checks and balances. The Amnesty Bill or any other laws to enable Thaksin’s corruption can then easily pass. Although the Constitutional Court struck down the senate-restructuring measure, Thaksin’s government openly declared that it would defy the court’s decision.”

As non-Thai readers (or, for that matter, some Thai readers) may not be so familiar with our “unique” political system, I will give a quick overview of the Senate’s composition. The Senate, or Upper House of the National Assembly, is comprised of 150 senators. As per the current constitution, 77 are directly elected using the first-past-the-post electoral system, with one representative from each of the 76 provinces plus Bangkok. This part is similar to the US Senate, where two representatives are directly elected from each state. However, the remaining 73 senators are not elected, but are appointed exclusively by a “Senators Selection Committee,” which consists of only seven individuals.

Candidates are selected from five categories of profession: the academic sector, the public sector, the private sector, the professional sector, and “other” sectors. All of the committee members are unelected officials from independent agencies and the judiciary. As such, they have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever. Moreover, many of these officials are appointed or nominated by the Senate itself. For example, both ombudsmen and election commissioners are appointed by the King upon the advice of the Senate. This creates a cyclical and self-perpetuating power structure, whereby senators appoint the appointers of their successors (and vice versa). The set up is inherently exposed to conflicts of interest, legitimizing a ruling bureaucracy of sorts that is not subject to any right of recall and is not accountable to the public.

This undemocratic nature of the Senate’s composition was an intensely debated topic during the Constitutional Referendum in 2007. Future Democrat Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva even went on record saying that he did not like this constitution precisely due to the inclusion of unelected senators, but that this could “easily be amended” at a later stage. Thaksin backers, meanwhile, campaigned unsuccessfully against the 2007 Constitution, predicting that any amendments in the future would be met with opposition. Today, they have been proven correct.

Given the backdrop as described above, it should not come as a surprise that any government even half-committed to democracy would seek to amend the Senate composition. This is not to, as you contend, “bar appointed senators who are professionals from all sectors,” but it is to bring democratic legitimacy to one of only two legislative bodies in our political system. The “appointed senators who are professionals” would still be free to participate in Senate elections in their respective provinces after the amendments are made.

Alas, the Constitutional Court “struck down” the senate-restructuring measure. This ridiculous verdict cited Section 68 of the Constitution, claiming that the efforts to change the Senate composition amounted to an attempt to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” Perhaps the Constitutional Court judges need to be reminded that in the 1997 Constitution, which was in use for almost a decade, the entire Senate body was in fact directly elected. Correct me if I’m wrong, but during that time we were also living under a “democratic regime of government with the (same) King as Head of State.”

To make matters worse, the second paragraph of Section 68 also specifies that “In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney-General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act…” It is crystal clear that any complaints must be submitted to the Attorney-General first, who would then investigate the facts before (if suitable) submitting a motion to the Constitutional Court. This is a good example of your favorite “checks and balances,” giving the Attorney-General the authority to screen cases pertaining to the broad-reaching Section 68 before they can be heard by the Constitutional Court. However, in this particular case the Constitutional Court decided to overstep its authority and violate the Constitution by allowing a group of people led by some appointed senators to bypass the Office of the Attorney-General and submit the motion directly. Simply put, it is not Thaksin that is threatening the checks and balances here; it is the Constitutional Court itself. Now you may start to understand why many people, not only those in the government, have openly declared their disgust at the clearly biased and improper conduct of the Court.

It is this blatant systematic policy of double standards and abuse of power solely for the benefit of the entrenched ruling elite and aristocracy that has urged Thai citizens to stand up and say, “Enough is enough.” The voters want reform. But first, undemocratic and extra-constitutional interference must be eradicated. After decades upon decades of coups and oppression, one thing is clear. Our current (semi)-democratic system has failed us. It has allowed for unelected forces to usurp power repeatedly and, on countless occasions, strip the people of their freedom and democratic rights. The citizens are calling for change. A true democracy with transparency, accountability, and most importantly, balance of power at all levels of government. We want democracy. And it is through elections that we will improve and maintain it.

Sincerely,
Chan Nilgianskul
Citizen of the Kingdom of Thailand

Chan Nilgianskul is a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of Chicago. He is currently a businessman and investor based in Thailand.

asiapacific.anu.edu.au

Originally Posted by Mid

# In February 2003, Thaksin launched a "war on drugs" campaign resulting in 2,800 extrajudicial killing in the span of three months. In 2007, official investigations concluded that more than half of those executed had no connections with drugs. The UN Human Rights Committee raised serious concerns yet perpetrators were never prosecuted.
# In 2004, Thaksin's security forces shot, suffocated or crushed to death 85 southern protestors in what is known as the Tak Bai massacre. Human Rights Watch has condemned this atrocity and urged independent criminal investigation but again, to no avail.
# According to Amnesty International, 18 human rights defenders were either assassinated or disappeared.
# Due to Thaksin's censorship and intimidation of the press, human rights violations remained unreported and any dissent was silenced.

First stage democracy at work, but hey, it's ok because it's about Asian pseudo-Democracy eventually, so it's all good and a small price to pay.

jesus christ !!! some people,