Thread: Censorship in Thailand

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

He said some of the information released by WikiLeaks should have been kept secret as it concerned national security.

whos ?

I see the videos of Hillary Clinton's failed Presidential campaign are on the Thailand banned list. And so they should be, along with her as a person.

In the movie below that was showed on truevision last month there is a scene
were the straight guy is searching for a new best friend to be his best man
at his wedding (He has no friends ) One night he goes for a beer with a new friend
who at the end of the night makes a pass at him and sticks his tongue in his mouth.Paul Rudds Character is stunned when this happens and is speechless
as the guy gets into a taxi.

Thai viewing ... They walk outside and say goodbye then you just see paul rudd looking speechless... If I had not seen the movie before it would make no sense
for the rest of the plot as to why he never speaks or gets uncomfortable whenever
his wife to be asks why he doesnt go drinking with his new friend anymore...

I love you, Man - Paul Rudd

Originally Posted by Sabang

Without the aid of a crystal ball, I predict that if and when CRES is disbanded, DSI will then report to ISOC. Meet the new Boss.

You were dead right, Sabang.

Situational Overview on the Control and Censorship of Online Media (2007-2010) | Prachatai English

Situational Overview on the Control and Censorship of Online Media (2007-2010)

Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:02 iLaw

Since the enforcement of the Computer Crime Act in July 2007, there have been 185 cases in relations to the CCA up to July 2010. There have been 117 court orders to block access to 74,686 URLs.

Statistics on Cases

Of 185 cases, most are based on the “content” on the internet such as defamation, fraud, lèse majesté and others. These cases are offences under section 14-16 of the CCA, and 128 cases fall under this category. 45 cases are related to the “system” such as unauthorised access to computer systems, conducting fraud using a computer system, and dissemination of unlawful computer programmes. These cases are offences under section 5-13 of the Act. In 12 other cases the researchers have no specific data.

Categorised by offences, the cases deal with: 1) defamation of third parties (54 cases); 2) fraudulent content (38 cases); 3) lèse majesté (31 cases); 4) pornography (12 cases); 5) merchandising illegal computer programmes (10 cases); 6) traditional computer crime (8 cases); 7) national security (6 cases); and 26 other cases which cannot be clearly categorised.

The researchers notice that most cases are already offences under other laws, but when a computer system is involved, they are considered to be computer crimes. For example, Section 14 (1) of the CCA, which talks about the offences of fraud or importing false computer data into a system, is not intended to be used alongside laws related to defamation, but in practice we see a high number of defamation cases being charged under the CCA. There are numerous cases like this, although Section 423 of the Criminal Code and Section 328 of the Civil Code are already there to deal with defamation. Likewise, Section 14 (1) is used with cases of frauds on web boards despite the existence of Section 341 of the Criminal Code dealing with fraud.

In practice, the CCA is often used along side other laws to file charges. This shows that the content of the CCA gives space for a broad legal interpretation. Law enforcers often use the CCA in a confusing manner, which has an effect on online communications.

Offences related to national security are stipulated in Section 14 (2) on importing false data that damages national security and Section 14 (3) on offences related to terrorism. It raises the question why, since offences under subsection (3) can be linked to clear offences written under the Criminal Code, it is still necessary to have subsection (2) which is written obscurely in the CCA. Section 14 (2) and (3) could be used as a political tool. Given the current political conflict, it is therefore likely that the number of cases related to national security would increase.

Offences related to lèse majesté are often charged under Section 14 (2) and 14 (3). 25 out of 31 cases are also charged under Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Lèse majesté is an issue where all Thai administrations put great importance in prosecuting suspects. Within the legal framework of the CCA, there is the problem of vague wording. Therefore it could be said that in a large number of cases the CCA has been used as a political weapon to attack opponents.

The offence on the dissemination of pornography is an offence under Section 14 (4) of the CCA and Section 287 of the Criminal Code. These two sections should have the characteristics of being a specific and a general law; therefore if dissemination is online, the CCA should be used alone since the CCA is the specific law, and the general law should not be used. However, in practice, it is found that police officials and public prosecutors use both charges at the same time in cases related to the dissemination of pornography online. This use of both charges raises the question whether this is a correct way to enforce the law.

Statistics on Censorship

The right of the people to access news and information is written into the CCA with the societal expectation that the courts play an important role as a check and balance against the power of state officials. Section 20 states that relevant officials may file a petition together with evidence to the court for an order to halt the dissemination of computer information, rather than the earlier practice where officials could use their power to block websites immediately.

The statistics show that in 2007 there was one court order to block 2 URLs. In 2008, there were 13 court orders to block 2,071 URLs. In 2009, there were 64 orders to block 28,705 URLs. And in 2010, there were 39 court orders to block 43,908 URLs. Altogether within three years after the enforcement of the CCA, there have been 117 court orders to block access to 74,686 URLs.

The reasons of the order for the blocking of websites can be ranked as follows: 1) lèse majesté content (57,330 URLs); 2) pornographic content (16,740 URLs); 3) information about abortion (357 URLs); 4) content related to gambling (246 URLs); 5) other reasons such as blasphemy, phishing/pharming (making fake websites), and even websites with content seeing the government differently on issues related to the dispersal of protesters thus were deemed to create chaos and division within the public.

Apart from blocking websites using court orders under the CCA, state officials were also discovered to be using other methods, for example, sending informal letters to internet providers asking for cooperation. Most importantly, actions taken by officials under the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations (Emergency Decree) show that websites that have been blocked under orders of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations (CRES) are in the tens of thousands. There are many cases where the CRES has ordered the closure of websites by citing a range of IP addresses. Such actions will affect a large number of websites, including those that are lawful but happen to be in the range of the ban.

It is also noted that the courts use extremely short periods of time to look at URLs before granting orders to block access to URLs. Of 117 orders, 104 received authorisation on the very same day to block 71,765 URLs. On average, 690 URLs are blocked daily. The number of websites that were blocked doubled during the demonstrations to demand political rights.

Apart from policies to block websites and prosecute internet users and internet service providers, the government also set up “Cyber Scout” units through the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding between three ministries namely the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of Culture, to monitor the internet, and inform relevant agencies about inappropriate content. The military also has special units to create state media to counter content critical of the monarchy such as the Network of the Navy Quartermaster to Promote and Protect the Monarchy on the Internet.

Comparison of the Situation, Law, and Online Media in Other Countries

When we compare the use of laws and policies in other countries on freedom of expression and access to information on the internet, we found that in Malaysia, there is no specific law directly related to online media. But governments can interpret certain existing laws to cover internet users. For instance, during a state of emergency, the executive has the power to pass laws that prohibit the discussion of issues related to citizenship and sovereignty. There are also laws related to confidential matters of the government, the Internal Security Act, and laws related to rioting.

In China, for the security of the Chinese government and Communist Party, people can make virtually no comment or criticism of the government. There are policies and laws that prohibit the right to freedom of expression and systematically control the media through the monopoly of telecommunication services. There are regulations that require internet users and website creators to monitor content as well as having software to prohibit full access to information.

In Germany, apart from laws protecting children and youth from pornography, the dissemination of extremist right and left wing ideology and unauthorised gambling are unlawful. However, the laws related to these issues are very specific and are not written in a broad manner. The court can be requested to investigate the use of state power on these matters.

For the United States, there are high levels of freedom in online media especially with regard to political opinion. There are, however, two limitations which are: 1) the protection of children and youth from pornography and 2) the fear of terrorism. The government has regulations for surveillance of online information which includes specific laws to block websites and arrest large numbers of suspects.

###

Situational Report on Control and Censorship of Online Media is the first period of the report under the research project on “The Effects of the Computer Crime Act 2007 and State Policies on the Right to Freedom of Expression”. The report is conducted by a team of iLaw Project researchers namely Sawatree Suksri (Director of the Project), Pol. Lt.Col. Dr. Siriphon Kusonsinwut, and Orapin Yingyongpathana, under the support of Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
Source:
Situational Overview on the Control and Censorship of Online Media (2007-2010) | iLaw.or.th

A matter of censorship

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Overlooked, at times endorsed, a stifling of debate in Thailand’s media forums continues to affect the country’s stability

Faced with government censure, prosecution for defamation or the consequences of discussing certain key issues, (self) censorship is an established practice in Thailand. Infrequently obvious, yet oblique and systemic, this is an old game.

“The index does not reflect just government abuses but also abuses by armed militia, clandestine organisations and pressure groups. In Thailand, criminal networks, corrupt local politicians and armed groups are also partly to blame for this deterioration in the situation of journalists.”

This letter, dated 2005, from then Secretary-General of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Robert Ménard to former Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra conveys the concerns that many media channels still understand when reporting in Thailand.

Though Thaksin’s military ousters swore to liberalize elements of the Press Laws and remove interference from state and private actors, Thailand has continued to slide. From 59 in 2004’s RSF Press Freedom Index (PFI), it has fallen almost one hundred places in just six years to 153 today. The World Bank’s ‘World Governance Indicators’ also reported a major deterioration in ‘Voice & Accountability’ this year, putting Thailand alongside Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The backdrop to this is the government’s monitoring and censorship operations, particularly of red shirt media and sites hosting comments deemed critical of Thailand’s revered monarchy. Encompassing several ministries, the armed forces, undisclosed budgets and new legislation, over 210,000 web pages have been blocked according to the most recent civilian estimates; the government no longer releases the figures.

Thailand’s much discussed political risks are building, and an opaque forum for discussion of the realities facing the country only heightens the risks.

Record growth in the Stock Exchange of Thailand and the Thai Baht might seem to contradict risk concerns, but with western markets still fighting to recover, Asia is a natural investment destination and many are willing to overlook certain negative considerations; if they are aware of them. A scenario not without precedent. China has already demonstrated that an authoritarian system with strict controls can enjoy economic growth.

Thailand undoubtedly remains an attractive investment destination with the government courting continued foreign direct investment. Awarded a world rank of 66 and 10 regionally by the Heritage Foundation’s 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Thailand has also scored well in the World Economic Forum’s 2010-11 Global Competitiveness Report, down two at 36.

Stability is investors’ paramount concern today and Thailand continues to promote this image. Yet strong undercurrents remain at all levels of Thai society that are not always conveyed in available media and political forums. This can create information gaps, fuelling market shocks and volatility when investors cannot plan ahead or become nervous.

Yet government censorship, largely political, is also exacerbated by a pervasive self-censorship that quietens dissenting views and a criminal code manipulated to silence critics through defamation suits.

The government and individual's pursuit of those seen to be critical of Thailand’s revered monarchy has also led to charges of lèse majesté being used to intimidate opponents, journalists and academics with a growing abandon. Web page administrators are now held accountable for comments posted in public forums and Meechai Ruchupan, former President of the Senate, veteran government legal advisor, and former President of the Council of the State recently indicated that this liability extends to owners of property similarly graffitied.

For foreign media that have discussed taboo subjects, publications have been pulped or withheld by distributors, agencies have closed their offices to protect staff from public reprisals, others have subsequently transferred their reporters out of the country.

The business sector is not immune from such public protestations.

In November 2009, Bloomberg found itself on the front line with the filing of a market report which speculated on the SET’s 2 - 3 per cent drop, on a day when the rest of Asia was up. Two traders who re-posted the article online in the closing hours and after the markets closed were subsequently arrested. Bloomberg was denounced, an official investigation launched, a Channel 9 expose on Bloomberg’s motives in publishing the information and accusations by yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul that it was trying to take down the country.*

No charges were ever brought against the traders, but nor has the investigation been formally closed. A scenario repeated across a broad spectrum of individuals and institutions whom the authorities have investigated in past years.

For media, Thailand is a minefield of grey areas. There are no clear red lines surrounding several taboo subjects and a country whose rhetorical intentions proclaim media freedom is too often contradicted by practical implementations.

In a region with such authoritarian governments as China, Myanmar and Vietnam, a senior Asia correspondent with an international news wire, speaking to Business Report Thailand, remarked, “There are only two countries that I cannot write on what I want, Singapore and Thailand.”

Singapore’s comparison is unexpected, perhaps, yet warranted.

Both countries have strong defamation laws which can be and have been manipulated to silence critics, particularly in government. Singapore, now at 136 in the RSF PFI, has maintained an average position of 141 since the index’s 2002 inception, the same year that Thaksin sued the Far Eastern Economic Review; the first salvo in a legacy of foreign and domestic media attacks.

In October, Pasit Sakdanarong, Secretary to the Constitutional High Court, fled to Hong Kong, two days before videos he is alleged to have recorded of illegal lobbying for the court to rule favourably in the Democrat party’s pending dissolution case were made public on Youtube (a site the government controversially blocked in 2007). Domestic media has quickly picked up the story, but questions remain. Why had he felt it necessary to flee the country and why did he not turn to domestic media to break the story first? The government has sought his return to face charges under the Computer Crimes Act, introduced in 2007 by the coup government and identified by opponents as a keystone in censorship practice. It seems that critical voices, however intentioned, are not yet permitted.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Why had he felt it necessary to flee the country and why did he not turn to domestic media to break the story first?

Yes, why? A rather telling 'dumb question'.

I'm sure various members of the constitutional 'court' will be happy to address this question during the exhaustive investigations that will surely follow their rather explicit live performances on Youtube.
Surely??

Or should we just ask Giles?

^
Ji was one of the first to call the real situation with Coup for the Rich. Credit where it's due I guess.

He's a bit too much grass-roots commie for me.. But as a social democrat I agree with most of his take on things.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/inve...oceania-moment

Thailand's Oceania moment

The government has promised to lift the state of emergency before year's end, but it's not known if that will reverse its Orwellian attack on freedom of expression online

• Published: 19/12/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: Spectrum

In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Truth , or "minitrue", freely rewrites history to satisfy the Party doctrine and propaganda. It exercises strict control over the media, all forms of entertainment, education, literature and anything else that might present an alternative viewpoint. Life in Oceania is full of spying and distrust, and posters of the Party leader bearing the message "Big Brother is Watching You", can be seen everywhere, along with mechanisms such as "telescreens" to monitor the public and private lives of the populace.



In 2010 in Thailand, the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Ministry, in conjunction with the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), has been enforcing the 2007 Computer Crime Act (CCA) to block thousands of websites.

The CRES, which came into being after the 2005 state of emergency decree was put into effect throughout most of the country in early April in response to the red shirt demonstrations in Bangkok, also exercises its power to control media such as community radio, newspapers and television.

According to a study from the iLaw Project titled, ''Situation Report on Control and Censorship of Online Media, through the Use of Laws and the Imposition of Thai State Policies'', the ICT ministry has filed charges against 185 individuals in relation to the CCA and there have been 117 court orders to block access to 74,686 URLs. On average, 690 URLs are blocked daily.

The 185 offences people have been arrested for under the CCA can be put into two major categories: legal cases related to computer systems, such as unauthorised access to computer systems, conducting fraud using a computer system, and dissemination of unlawful computer programmes; and the use of content as a basis to consider legal offences such as defamation, fraud and lese majeste against individuals or institutions.


DOCUMENTING CENSORSHIP: Left, Thammasat University law lecturer Sawatree Suksri.

Of the 185 cases, 54 involve defamation of third parties, 38 involve fraudulent content and 31 involve lese majeste (see graphic I). Thammasat University Law lecturer Sawatree Suksri, who headed the study, pointed out that a high proportion of the offences are related to content, and said this reflects on freedom of expression in society. She added that the courts have been quick to process these cases.

According to the study, there are a number of ruling cases that based on the different content; national security is one among them. (See graphic II) (I don't understand this) .

''Within the legal framework of the CCA, there is the problem of vague wording,'' reads the report. ''Therefore it could be said that in a large number of cases the CCA has been used as a political weapon to attack opponents.''

The CCA allows for broad legal interpretation, and that is why sometimes, some law enforcers use it in a confusing manner, said the research director. She added that this has a major effect on online communications in the country.



Ms Sawatree said that when asked, no state agencies would provide reasons for blocking particular websites. Sawatree ''No government agency had been tasked with documenting or creating a database on cases of blocked websites and making this information available to the public,'' she said, adding that her official requests were greeted with vague and unofficial justifications such as ''structural changes in the organisation'', ''new officials tasked to monitor the information who were not yet familiar with the system'', ''case data not available in digital form'', ''relevant official was transferred taking the information with them'', and ''no documentation of computer-related cases''.

The study analysis noted that the offences related to national security are stipulated in the Computer Crime Act, Section 14 (2), on importing false data that damages national security, and Section 14 (3), on offences related to terrorism (see box). Offences related to lese majeste are often brought under these sections. However, 25 of the 31 lese majeste cases were also brought under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.

It is obvious that the Thai government places great importance in guarding against lease majeste, but many feel the highly sensitive issue has been used as a means to muzzle the media, online communicators and, in general. all individuals who think differently from the government.

It's not quite Oceania in 1984, but in the year 2010 Thailand looks to be becoming less free. Reporters San Frontieres ranked Thailand 153 out of 178 in terms of freedom of expression in its 2010 World Press Freedom Index, just above Burma at 174. North Korea came in at 177. Even after the 2006 military coup in Thailand, Thailand was ranked at 122.

This year, ''Big Brother'' has assigned agencies to scrutinise the behaviour and opinions of Thai people using new media sources such as social networks like Facebook and Twitter which have become hugely popular.

According to the National Electronics and Computer Technology Centre (NECTEC), as of Aug 18, 2010, there were 21.14 millions internet users in Thailand, 15. 52% more than at the same time last year (about 18.3 million). As of Nov 29, Thailand had 6.57 million of Facebook users, as compared to 1.96 million in November 2009.


Many of those using social media may not be responsible in their online posts, but often it is the websites' providers who take the heat. A case in point is Prachatai News online, which has a popular web forum.

Prachatai News online manager Jiranute Permchaiporn has been arrested twice under the Computer Crime Act and could face up to 70 years in jail, although she was not the one who posted the messages that were deemed offensive. She said the attack on social media is an attempt to undermine freedom of expression. ''Many authorities abuse the laws. I think it would be is better to have clear social and legal mechanisms to control the use of social network,'' she said.

Social network has been instrumental in giving out facts and information in real time, for example the pictures and messages that were posted during the peak of the political turmoil in Bangkok in April and May. Many in the ''red camp'' felt they were being ignored by the mainstream media during such the conflict, but through various social forums they were able to give their side of the story in those critical days.

''I don't want to listen to, watch or read one-sided information that the government presents to portray red shirt people. Through social networks we could at least to send out pictures and information on things like who really occupied CentralWorld after the protest was raided on May 19,'' said a young red shirt leader.

On the other side, the group SS (formerly known as Social Sanction), a network of internet users with pages on different social websites including Facebook and Twitter, has been actively involved in tracking down people who they believe are guilty of disseminating information that constitutes lese majeste.

The Thammasat report says of SS: ''They then condemn and vilify these individuals in public and search for private information on those individuals which they further disseminate to the public.''

This is known among social networkers as a ''witch hunt''. A student who posted a message in late April on her Facebook page had her message publicised and she was denigrated for allegedly insulting the royal institution. SS members searched for her personal information, which was later used by the Department of Special Investigation to arrest her for lese majeste.

The right of the people to access news and information was acknowledged by the drafters of the CCA, the expectation being that the courts would play a necessary role in checking and balancing the power of state officials. Section 20 of the CCA states that relevant officials may file a petition together with evidence to the court to obtain an order to halt the dissemination of computer information, as opposed to the officials blocking the websites immediately, as was the earlier practice. The officials are also authorised to use other methods to remove web content considered objectionable, for example, sending informal letters to internet providers asking for cooperation.

Under the power of the emergency decree, the CRES has dispensed with the legal niceties and blocked thousands of websites swiftly and without appeal.

''There are many cases where the CRES has ordered the closure of websites and cited a range of IP addresses. Such actions will affect a large number of websites, including those that are lawful but happen to be in the range of the ban,'' said Ms Sawatree, raising the example of Prachatai, which in addition to its web forum also operates as a news organisation.

''The questionable messages were posted on the webboard, but the online news was also blocked. This undermine the right of the people to information,'' said the law lecturer.


SYMBOLS OF CONNECTION: Above, some social networking logos including, at lower left, Prachatai News, with an announcement that the web forum had been closed. Below, Prachatai online manager Jiranuch Permchaiporn.

Apart from blocking websites and prosecuting certain internet users and service providers, the government also set up ''Cyber Scout'' units through a memorandum of understanding between the ministries of Information and Communication Technology, Justice and Culture to monitor the internet, and inform relevant agencies about inappropriate content. The military also has special units to counter content deemed critical of the monarchy, such as the Network of the Navy Quartermaster to Promote and Protect the Monarchy on the Internet.

The unprecedented advances in information technology worldwide have created an urgent need to find a balance between protecting freedom of expression and social interests and national security.
National Human Right Commissioner Nirun Pitakwatchara said people should contemplate whose security these laws are trying to protect.

''Is it the security of the rulers or the security of the nation?'' he asked, adding that if the government is sincere and operates with transparency, it has nothing to fear.

Supinya Klangnarong, from the Thai Netizen Network, called on the government to protect the rights and freedoms of internet users, and treat intermediaries such as Prachatai as a part of the fundamental infrastructure that can which could benefits activities on the internet.

She recommended that the government form a multi-party committee representing the diverse group of internet stake holders in order to reform sections 14, 15 and 20 of the CCA.

''We believe that that internet, and all media, are spaces for exchanging information and are for peaceful political battles. If the state tries to block or shut down these spaces, people would have no room to exchange ideas openly and the conflicts in society could not be reduced,'' she said.

In 2010 the Thai people should not have to blindly follow where the government leads. An orderly society need not come at the cost of freedom of expression.

LAWS ON EXPRESSION

BE 2550 (2007) Constitution

Article 45: A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speeches, write, print, publicise, and express himself by other means.

The restriction on liberty under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of maintaining the security of the state, protecting rights, liberties, dignity, reputation, family or privacy rights of other persons, maintaining public order or good morals or preventing or halting the deterioration of the minds or health of the public.

The prevention of a newspaper or other mass media sources from printing news or expressing opinions, wholly or partly, or interference in any manner whatsoever in deprivation of the liberty under this article shall not be made except by the provisions of the law.

BE 2550 (2007) Commuter Crime Act

Section 14. Any person committing any offence involving the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht, or both:

(2) import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;

(3) import to a computer system of any computer data related to an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;

(4) import to a computer system of any computer data of a pornographic nature that is publicly accessible;

Section 15. Any service provider intentionally supporting or consenting to an offence under Section 14 within a computer system under their control shall be subject to the same penalty as that imposed upon a person committing an offence under Section 14.

Section 20. If an offence under this act disseminates computer data that might have an impact on the Kingdom's security as stipulated in Division 2, type 1 or type 1/1, of the Criminal Code, or that might be deleterious to the peace and accord or good morals of the people, the competent official appointed by the minister may file a petition together with the evidence to a court with jurisdiction to restrain the dissemination of such computer data.

BE 2499 (1956) Criminal Code

Section 112: Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

freely rewrites history

Ironically that's exactly what the Bangkok Post are doing with their own recent history. Do they really think people have forgotten their hysterical rhetoric and their fanatical editorial support that led, at least partially, to the current situation in Thailand? The biter bit, eh?

^ Well at least they are trying to make amends....?

Seen this? Excellent stuff from Khun Pleaum. Saw it here first, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newman...-on-wikileaks/

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ Well at least they are trying to make amends....?

That's no excuse. They're supposedly intelligent people yet they couldn't see the inevitable consequences of their actions? I have absolutely no time for people who can't see what military coups and oligarchical rule lead to, it's not like there was ever any shortage of people pointing out how things were going to go or any shortage of lessons from history. That's one of the reasons why I have been and still am so contemptuous of those who support authoritarianism in any form and particularly contemptuous of those who start whining when it turns out the authoritarians will happily turn on those who supported them once their purpose has been served.

When the inevitable happens, the military will have no one to hide behind. It will be just them (and the elite ruling class) against the people.

As I see it there are three main possible outcomes;--
1. A Burma style military dictatorship,
2. A split in the military with a full scale socialist revolution,
3. A gradual transition to an actual democracy.

Right at the moment the most likely outcomes appear to be in descending order as described above.

^^ yeah DrB, posted it in the Wikileaks thread...made me laugh....

Originally Posted by Panda

As I see it there are three main possible outcomes;--
1. A Burma style military dictatorship,
2. A split in the military with a full scale socialist revolution,
3. A gradual transition to an actual democracy.

1. is their backup plan, but leads to 2..
3. won't happen; the PAD/army/PC have shown that they will NOT give up power.

2. Is the only option I can see common ro fruition.

I find it very, very interesting that the BBC story was blocked originally (a sort of service denial rather than the MICT ban page) but is now completely open to view.

My questions are:

1. Why is such blatant LM allowed to be accessed from Thailand when so many other incredibly benign things (in comparison) are blocked?
2. Will the alleged LM suspects be brought to book ("charged") with the offences or at least called in for questioning??
3. Is the fact that the Government has NOT blocked this lead, in itself, to LM? And what does that say about the government?

Wow.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Panda

As I see it there are three main possible outcomes;--
1. A Burma style military dictatorship,
2. A split in the military with a full scale socialist revolution,
3. A gradual transition to an actual democracy.

1. is their backup plan, but leads to 2..
3. won't happen; the PAD/army/PC have shown that they will NOT give up power.

2. Is the only option I can see common ro fruition.

Dspressing. It looks more and more like we need to prepare to execute that Plan B escape after all, doesn't it?

Ferraro is right when he called this place "unhinged" - how could any leadership allow things to unravel so badly? Common sense clearly indicated that a socialist democratic path - which assured Sakdina/Amart safety was the way forward. Incredible they just couldn't see it (or act upon it). They will surely regret it somewhere down the road - though I doubt 2011 will be a tipping point. Probably 2012/13. But hey - who knows?

^ I think all of you have missed the point and aren't seemingly aware of the bigger picture.

As regards this place being unhinged, is it really any different than it has been for the last, well, forever...?

You have an old guard, facing up to the modern reality and they aren't doing very well....their choices and decisions have been extremely poor to say the least. Complacency and arrogance, with a nice sprinkling of ignorance ensures this. Commonsense doesn't feature (but does it ever in any modern democracy/government?).

The good news, they wont last forever. The bad news, they will be around long enough to cause untold misery. But the clock is ticking....and time is not on their side...

However, change is inevitable and the people will get the government they deserve. As it is elsewhere, thus shall it be here. It'll just take a while....but change will come. Growing pains, are painful....

If the Thai people are REALLY lucky, they may get the 'utopian ideal' of say, American democracy (!!)....gee, what a thing to aim for....

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The good news, they wont last forever.

That's hardly good news, they've long since prepared the next generation of oligarchs.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It'll just take a while....but change will come. Growing pains, are painful....

78 years so far, and counting. (800 years if you really want to look at the "bigger" picture).

^ Well, now we have an emerging "educated" middle class here, who are really into electronic communication and want their standard of living etc etc. Things are different. Abhisit and any future government is going to need to pander to this well off group...or risk losing everything.

It's easy for the rich to control the poor, but that dynamic is no longer relevant here. Things have changed.

The genie is out of the bottle and it is far too late to stopper it...

I think we'll end up with a "managed democracy" here, as we have in the west. It looks like democracy, but the choices you have a carefully managed.....!

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I find it very, very interesting that the BBC story was blocked originally (a sort of service denial rather than the MICT ban page) but is now completely open to view.

My questions are:

1. Why is such blatant LM allowed to be accessed from Thailand when so many other incredibly benign things (in comparison) are blocked?
2. Will the alleged LM suspects be brought to book ("charged") with the offences or at least called in for questioning??
3. Is the fact that the Government has NOT blocked this lead, in itself, to LM? And what does that say about the government?

Wow.

Inquiring towards the obvious is beyond what we might suspect or even expect, TS. Perhaps they have something hidden up their sleeves.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ Well, now we have an emerging "educated" middle class here, who are really into electronic communication and want their standard of living etc etc. Things are different. Abhisit and any future government is going to need to pander to this well off group...or risk losing everything.

It's easy for the rich to control the poor, but that dynamic is no longer relevant here. Things have changed.

The genie is out of the bottle and it is far too late to stopper it...

I think we'll end up with a "managed democracy" here, as we have in the west. It looks like democracy, but the choices you have a carefully managed.....!

Yes...change. But for the better? It's the social systems that need to remain solid - not a political identity. I find that any {and every} such "borrowed" interloping social infracstructures will be the sure death of this respected culture.