Deconstructing Sopon Onkgara: Justifying PAD Terrorism, Again

FBI definition of Terrorism:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


Arab Definition of Terrorism:

Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.


The Thai definition of Terrorism(Bangkok Pundit):

Section 135/1 A person commits an act which is a criminal offence [if they commit one] of the following:

(1) [The person] commits an act of violence, or commits any act which causes harm to [a person's] life, or serious harm to [a person's] body, or the liberty of any person,

(2) [The person] commits an act causing serious damage to a public transportation system, a telecommunications system, or to any infrastructure which has a public benefit, [or]

(3) [The person] commits an act causing damage to the property of any state, or of any person, or to the environment which has caused or is likely to cause significant economic damage.

If such acts are committed with the intention to threaten, or to compel the Thai Government, a foreign government, or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act which will cause serious damage or to cause disorder by creating widespread fear among the public [then] that person has committed a terrorist act.

[That person] shall be punished by death, life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment between three years to twenty years, and a fine between 60,000 Baht to 1,000,000 Baht.

Even though it clear that the PAD acted in a terrorist like fashion, Sopon believes that the PAD is this innocent organization above Thai law, because anything it does is justified in getting Thaksin.


From The Nation:


Are there really at least 25 "terrorists" out there roaming freely, many of them appearing on television regularly? The city police have said so and have asked them to show up at the Police Club on July 16 to face multiple criminal charges. Until that day the police apparently do not regard these "terrorists" as a clear and present danger to the general public. They are acting cool and confident over the whole matter.


The 25 "terrorists" are among those who occupied the front area of Suvarnabhumi Airport - the passenger drop zone, to be precise - in early December. During that siege - complete with food and live music in an atmosphere of camaraderie - the police claimed the "terrorists" had posed a threat to security at the airport.


Sopon conveniently forgets to add that the PAD took over the airport control tower. Seriously, what kind of idiot would think that it is perfectly OK to take over the lobby or front section of an airport and not think it was a breach of security? The Nation will do everyting humanly possible to justify the PAD's crimes in the name of getting Thaksin. Ironic, isn't it? Thaksin is a criminal, but it is OK to be a criminal to get a criminal. I don't know how these people look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. Their entire professional lives are built upon intellectual inconsistency.


The terrorism charge, which carries death as the maximum penalty, is deemed necessary by some senior police officers loyal to fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra because it would get rid of the PAD leaders, his adversaries and critics.


This is the same Sopon who believes in using coups, military propaganda, the Interior Ministry, and a corrupt court system to do everything in their power outside the law to get Thaksin. And he doesn't provide one shred of evidence that these police are loyal to Thaksin. In the world of Sopon and The Nation, if the police follow the law, yet doesn't support their political allies by letting off the hook for their crimes, then you must be a Thaksin stooge.


Kasit has been regarded as an inherent threat to Thaksin, who has to dodge around in his leased jet to evade Interpol and extradition. That's why the red shirts and Pheu Thai demand Kasit's immediate resignation, despite the fact that the terrorism charge is as flimsy as a negligee. What's more, the police have yet to substantiate their charge with solid evidence. It is also a long way from a court trial, even if this charge is ever accepted as a prima facie case


The entire world saw the PAD take over the Phuket airport, Suvarnabhumi, and Don Muang. It was plastered all over the TV and in the newspapers. Anybody can see the YouTube videos. And Kasit admitted to the international press he willingly took part in it all! Just how stupid does Sopon think his readership is? No wonder The Nation is losing its shirt. It lives in its own fantasy world.

It is odd that the police have decided to hurl the terrorism charge at these political demonstrators. Not that they were not aware of its possible backfiring; the necessity was dictated by selective and biased practices, as has been pointed out by the defence lawyers for the PAD.


Earlier, the city police slapped a charge of treason on some of these people, only for it to be dumped by the Criminal Court when the PAD leaders brought it to the attention of the bench. Red-faced but still motivated by politics and the coercive persuasion of Thaksin's cronies, the city police must let this particular charge be decided by the public prosecutors and probably the Criminal Court.


Anybody who doesn't agree with Sopon or the PAD is a Thaksin crony. The law is crystal clear. The PAD committed an act of terrorism under Thai law.

The airport seizure was overshadowed and surpassed in terms of severity by the Songkran riots and acts of terror committed by red-shirted thugs. The present government had to impose a state of emergency and ordered troops to end the disturbances. Subsequently the red-shirt leaders faced criminal charges and several of them spent a brief period in confinement.


Thanks Sopon for acknowledging the double standards between the Reds and Yellows. By the way, there was a state of emergency for the PAD also. Your friends and patrons in the military chose to ignore it.

Quite simple: Two of the red-shirt leaders are also House members and are enjoying freedom of movement due to a bail agreement. If they want Somkiat out, it means they will have to leave the House and lose their princely salaries as well. So far the police have not charged them with terrorism despite their role as instigators of the red-shirt thugs who wreaked havoc on some parts of the city.


Should Kasit resign? Judging from the recent standards of practice of the city police and the erosion of public trust in their performance, it would be a futile exercise to yield to pressure from the opposition. There have been other acts of terrorism, such as the firing of grenades at the PAD rallies, which caused at least four deaths and many casualties. These incidents are ignored or overlooked by the police.


Just how stupid is Sopon? Does he even bother to read his own writing? Out of one side of his mouth, he champions and defends the PAD and their leadership for their terrorism, yet thinks the Red should get hit with the book for their crimes. I don't know how this guy can live with himself. He is a walking contradiction.

The Economist on the Lese Majeste Craze

The Economist


Excerpt:

But the efforts of self-proclaimed royalists are arguably doing as much harm to the institution as criticism by their opponents. The justice minister, Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, for instance, has declared that his highest priority is the protection of the monarchy. So an elite law-enforcement agency in his ministry, which is supposed to take on drug kingpins and other crooks, is busy chasing lowly bloggers.

By persecuting Thais who give vent online, these moral guardians may be adding to the anger against Bangkok’s elite and, perhaps, fanning the flames of republicanism. Their zeal certainly undercuts Mr Abhisit’s feeble efforts to unite a polarised nation. Many observers conclude that the crown must be behind the crackdown. They think the royal family wants to keep a lid on frank discussion, at least until the 81-year-old King Bhumibol hands over to his likely successor, the unpopular crown prince, Maha Vajiralongkorn. Not so, insists a source in the palace, who blames an overzealous government for the spurt of arrests. King Bhumibol himself said in 2005 that he was not above criticism. He has also pardoned lèse majesté convicts, including Harry Nicolaides, an Australian author, in February.

Even in China, it is hard to control the internet (this week, the country delayed plans to put internet filtering software into every computer). And compared with China’s sophisticated controls, Thai censorship is Firewall 101. It uses keyword searches to turn up suspect websites. Wily netizens will no doubt stay a step ahead of the censors, using proxies and other tools, as they do in China and Myanmar. Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to protect the good name of the king are not only damaging democracy but may even rebound upon the royal reputation.

I only copied the last 3 paragraphs. Most of the story is just a run down of all the recent lese majeste cases.

Despite the Thai media's hatred for The Economist, it is by far the most prominent English news weekly in the world. Stories like this don't help Thailand's reputation at all. But the powers at be bring it upon themselves.

I am of the belief, like most sane people in the world, that arresting and prosecuting people for lese majeste is by far a bigger threat to Thailand's national security than the actual act of lese majeste itself.

In defending of the king, people are harming the king. Too bad they are too ignorant to see the obvious.

Where is the Lese Majeste? (Jakrapob's Talk at FCCT)

Well, however we have started of as a country in Patronage system.

Most of you who read about Thailand and it's brief history, because we decided to count our history 700 years ago and disregard the 300 years before that because it involved the Southern complexity.

That's why the history was chosen to start 700 years ago in Sukothai period where Sukothai was the capital city of what would become Thailand. In Sukothai at least in one the reigns of the Sukothai long history, we were led to know and believe that one of the Kings during Sukothai period, King Ramkamheang at the time to be more precisely.

Great brother oh I'm sorry Great Father Ramkamheang at the time because the idea of God like monarch hasn't arrived in this land yet during the Sukothai period. So he was or they were observed and regarded as the Great Fathers who could be benevolent to their people and gave the people what the people needed at the time.

One of the noted examples was that Great Father Ramkamheang or King Ramkamheang just to be short proposed to have a bell hung in front of his palace and anybody with specific problems could come and ring that bell and he or his people would come out and handle the problems.

That was one of the first lessons the Thai students learnt about Thai political regime that you have someone to depend upon.

When you have a problem turn to someone who can help you, so before we know it, we are led into the Patronage system because we asked about dependency before our own capability to do things.

These are the very basic concept that makes Thai people different from many peoples around the world.

So we started of like that, during the Sukothai period we had Kings that did things like that.

So people had duty to be loyal, people had duty to have faith in the system bestowed on them because that was the working system at that time and there was no competing system.

In other words, there was not there was no better idea on how a kingdom could be run so that it was the best system at the time.

Later on in Ayuthaya period, that was the capital city of a land for 400 and some years, the God like idea of monarch had been introduced with the Khmer civilization's influence. The idea of a King as a Demi-God as a representative from the Hindu Gods and the Gods beyond these Hindu Gods had arrived in our land at that time.

So the Patronage system of helping people or being dependable for people had been changed into the state of protection.

If you have loyalty to the King, unquestionable loyalty to the King, you would be protected, in order to show this protection more clearly, people who do otherwise must be punished.

So the very system in Ayuthaya period shows or showed that there was an evolution of the system, some people might call it regressive, some people would call it progressive. Whatever it might be in your opinion, it was a combination between the benevolence of the Great Fathers model and the Great Leaders model. In other words, the Kings of Ayuthaya were powerful and the concept of power were realized at the time that if people in power could be benevolent, you could benefit from that power as well. In other words Ayuthaya period taught Thai people to live with power, how to live with it. How to survived in it, and how not to be destroyed by it. But Ayuthaya period also triggered the new relationships in a land, the master slave relationship, the noble and commoners relationship. That was Ayuthaya.

Then came Rattanakosin period, I would eh bypass the 12 years of Thonburi period. In Rattanakosin period, in which we are now.

The Chakri Dynasty was the starter of this so called Rattanakorin Rattanakosin period.

What it it is? It's a combination of Ayuthaya and the new skills of what I would like to call knowledge management.

In other words, the glory of the chief father is combined with the power of Ayuthaya period and the Demi-God stature of the monarchs has been added during Rattanakosin period with the so-called knowledge management.

Knowledge is power at that time, it was perceived so. That's why King Mongkut spoke English in his court and he introduced science and probably technologies, inventions, foreign goods that were completely unknown to Thai people at that time. As one of the sources of his powers King Mongkut was seen not as a benevolent King, not as the best of the chief Father King but as the Father of science and technology. He's still regarded that way.

So in other words, the system in Thailand has been to the point that leaders and rulers have been finding the best way possible at that time to convince people that they are dependable. The sources of their being dependable varies over time, like I described to you.


His English is poor, but everything he said you can find in most Thai history books.

Where does he mention HMTK, the Queen, or the Crown Prince?

There is no crime.


Here is a Nation Channel report on the story. Fair and Balanced as always.

Deconstructing Pavin Chachavalpongpun: Thailand's Foreign Policy

Bangkok Post

Since Thaksin Shinawatra was toppled in a military coup in September 2006, Thailand has arguably survived without a foreign policy. Successive governments were too preoccupied with having to fight for their political existence. The unending political wrangling between various factions effectively put the country's foreign policy on the back burner.

Some Thais found it difficult to imagine if having a clear foreign policy was necessarily a good thing, especially if such foreign policy is to be made in the same way it was under Thaksin's rule.

What was wrong with Thaksin's foreign policy?

Thaksin himself would argue that he successfully elevated Thailand's international standing from obscurity to hegemonisation, through a myriad grandiose foreign policy initiatives, including the Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) and the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (Acmecs), and therefore transformed Thailand from a mid-range power into the region's leading nation.

Thailand a la Thaksin became a donor country.

He promoted a business-oriented foreign policy that was designed to aggressively search for more markets for Thai products. Numerous free trade agreements were signed.

He even nominated his foreign minister, Surakiart Sathirathai, for the position of United Nations secretary-general.

Thaksin was never short of ambitious objectivess.

Thaksin also revamped the Foreign Ministry, with the CEO ambassador scheme being put in place. He then began to "colonise" this state agency and turned it into a policy-making factory that served his domestic needs, legitimate or otherwise.

Yet, Thaksin's foreign policy was as much ambitious as artificial. His impressive initiatives simply overlooked the national capacity and constraints. More importantly, they were tainted by conflicts of interest involving the corporate concerns of the Shinawatra family. His personal business interests in neighbouring countries revealed the exploitative nature of Thai foreign policy.

Ah, the joys of shameless propaganda. Observe the set up. Compare the evil Thaksin with the enlightened and holy Abhisit.

First of all, I think it is fair to point out on my part that from my personal memory, I don't think Thaksin was this great foreign policy genius. Despite the lies in The Nation and Bangkok Post, he was routinely criticized and committed major faux pauxs. There was no universal love for Thaksin in the international press or the international community.


Where I think Thaksin did good?


I think he handled the Tsunami crisis fairly well-- even though I think it is a shame that some his cronies stole some of the donor money. On the other hand, I think he handled the chicken flu and Sars crisis poorly.

I think he handled the Cambodia crisis fairly well. That could have turned into an absolute disaster. What happened in Cambodia was an act of war.

For Thailand, when you look at the net benefits, free trade is good for the country, so his free trade agreements were successful policy initiatives. On the other hand, I don't think the Chinese trade agreement has been good for Thai farmers.

If you look at bi-lateral trade during the Thaksin years, it absolutely boomed. It doubled exports from 65 billion to 130 billion between 2001 and 2006. The trade numbers for Russia, China, the Middle East and India quadrupled. (BoT) I think you have to give Thaksin credit there. He really made efforts in those markets.

I think he did a good job with the APEC summit.

Depending on your perspective, he was either a good or bad ally to the US. One could argue that allowing torture of foreign nationals on Thai soil was not a good thing. On the other hand, the terrorists who were captured in Thailand were not good people and major operatives of Al Qaeda.

I am not privy to any behind the scenes politics, but I would reckon that relations with the US were not good, because the US gave no support to Thaksin whatsoever for being ousted in a coup.

I would argue probably the same for Western Europe.

I think his record with ASEAN was mixed. With the demise of the despots in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, he wanted to emerge as a regional leader to fill that vacuum. I think he may have succeeded if it weren't for the coup. On the other hand, Thaksin had an uncouthness about him that rubbed people the wrong way. But you can't make omelettes without breaking some eggs.

People fault him for being too soft on Burma because of personal business.

I think Thaksin was a firm believer in the Chulalongkorn Doctrine. He believed in balancing all powers off against each other.

I think Thaksin had vision. He wanted to put Thailand(and himself) on the map regionally and internationally. You can't fault him for having vision. Most Thai prime ministers are content with Thailand forever being a 3rd or 4th tier country without any significance in regional or international affairs.

Thaksin may have been a legend in his own mind, but the guy had balls.

Under the Abhisit administration, Thai foreign policy has undergone an extreme makeover. The Democrat-led government has rejected Thaksin's business-first mentality and re-introduced a seemingly principle-based foreign policy. This time principle, not profit, represents the mainstay of Thai diplomacy.

By denouncing Thaksin's past initiatives, the current government hopes it would also de-legitimise his foreign policy - a much-needed strategy to alienate Thaksin further from Thai political circles.

Members of the academia and local media seem to have embraced Mr Abhisit's new direction in Thai foreign policy. His government has spent the past six months fixing the country's diplomatic missteps caused by Thaksin and his cronies.

Thailand's cosy relations with her immediate neighbours, during the Thaksin years, were mostly built on personal relations, and sometimes did not necessarily reflect national interests. The Abhisit administration has re-invented Thai foreign policy to become more accountable, especially in the year Thailand is chairing Asean.

Because his government has no record of civilian supremacy, injecting a democratic principle in foreign policy might just redeem a sense of legitimacy it sorely needs in these hours of political turbulence.

Last month, the government issued a statement, on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, voicing grave concern at the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, in which she is charged with violating her house arrest rules by allowing American John Yettaw into her residence. Thailand saw the need to toughen its stance and that of Asean vis-a-vis the Burmese junta to prove the country's respect for democracy - a position extolled by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The media called it a renaissance of the "flexible engagement policy" initiated by the Democrat Party in the late 1990s. It legitimised the Thai concern over the troubling domestic situation in the neighbouring country especially if it had the potential to create a negative impact on Thailand.

Burma's response to the Thai statement was predictable. It reproached Asean's statement and criticised Thailand for breaching the non-interference rule. What followed was the Burmese army's attacks on the Karen National Union which disturbed the Thai-Burmese border by the influx of Burmese refugees fleeing the fighting, probably as punishment for Thailand's hard-line policy towards Rangoon.

With Cambodia, Thailand may have continued to play a nationalistic card in the Preah Vihear temple case. At a deeper level, what the Abhisit government has done in "de-personalising" Thai policy towards Cambodia should be commended. Many Thai-Cambodian shady businesses were reportedly promoted by the Thaksin regime. This explains why Thai policy has often been held hostage by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Hun Sen has been known for his sharp tongue. He once angrily responded, "Suvanand was not even worth a blade of grass at Angkor."

In 2003, Thai actress Suvanand Kongying, was misquoted as saying that Angkor Wat belonged to Thailand, an incident that caused the ransacking of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh.

More recently, Hun Sen confronted the Thai leadership, suggesting that Thailand should give up its Asean chairmanship because of its escalating domestic situation.

He himself is a devout nationalist, often speaking about the use of force against Thailand to protect so-called Cambodian sovereignty. His love for Thaksin remains evident.

The latest Thai opposition to the UN declaration at the World Heritage meeting in Spain, with a proposal that the grounds of the disputed temple be placed under joint Thai-Cambodian maintenance, could be perceived not only as a defence of Thai interests, but also a bold move in Thai diplomacy which refuses to become too elastic in accordance with the preferences of Cambodian leaders like in the past.

Domestically, Thai politics seems to have calmed down, at least for now. This allows the government to rethink and reformulate its future foreign policy. So far, the making of a more responsible and transparent diplomacy has been met with a favourable response from foreign ministry officials.

But not everyone appreciates the latest reinvention of Thai foreign policy. Starkly differing judgements continue to surround the Abhisit government's push for a new direction in the country's foreign policy, which can come across as belligerent and antagonistic towards Thai neighbours.

However, as the Abhisit government has consistently argued, Thailand might have gained a few enemies as a result of its tougher diplomacy.

But the country's foreign policy, for the first time since 2001, has definitely gained a more ethical and moral reputation.

I threw up in my mouth after reading this propaganda.

Filling the upper echelons of the foreign ministry with Thaksin haters like Kosit is not a foreign policy.

Abhisit has no vision. Like in domestic politics, he thinks all he has to do is show off his aristocratic pedigree, his foreign degrees, his good looks and nice English accent and think that is all that is needed to get respect and have everybody swoon like teenage school girls.

Pavin is talking out both sides of the mouth: Thailand should come down hard on Burma for its human rights abuses--even though Thailand has no moral authority to lecture any military junta about anything-- while pounding the drums of Bang Rajan and whipping up right-wing nationalist sentiment over a Khmer Temple on Cambodian soil.

Let us count the ways of Abhisit's disgrace:

1. ASEAN summit cancelled because he can't guarantee security for heads of state.

2. Has a foreign minister who believes in taking over airports and calls a neighboring PM a thug.

3. Covers up for the military during the Rohingya boat people episode and goes on international TV and lies about it.

4. Unnecessarily whips up right-wing sentiment over Preah Vihear because of his domestic policy failings.

5. Goes hat in hand begging for foreign money in China.

6. Crying about Burma's human rights abuses while he uses state power to destroy his political enemies.

7. Thinks it is bad and evil for Arabs to own farmland but thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the Chinese to own Thai banks and national infrastructure.

All this bleating on and on about Abhisit's morality and ethics is a joke. Abhisit has no problems using one of the most corrupt politicians in the history of Thai politics, Newin Chidchob, and the military to come to power through nefarious means.

Abhisit has one foreign policy, which I am going to coin the term the "Panda Doctrine."

Look cute and cuddly and try to impress people with his pedigree and good looks and hope for the best in captivity.

Inappropriate Petition

Bangkok Post


The plan by the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) to collect up to one million signatures to support a petition seeking a royal pardon for convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, is unprecedented and highly improper, to say the least.


Why is it improper? Why can't a free people petition their king on any matter that they want?

Yes, it may be pointless and a waste of time, but, in the end, the king can answer or not answer. Up to him. He gets hit with petitions for this and that all the time that are beyond the scope of his power.

The UDD may genuinely, though mistakenly, believe that Thaksin's conviction was politically motivated and orchestrated.

Still, the UDD must realise that the attempt to mobilise mass support for a royal pardon would place His Majesty the King in an awkward position.

After all, Thaksin's case was decided by the court.

The case was politically motivated and decided. The crime that Thaksin was guilty of was being married to Potjaman when she bought land at a state auction. That's it. To prove criminal liability, one must bring evidence that a crime was broken and there was intent to commit a crime. Neither thing was proven. There was no injury to the state. There was no evidence of abuse of power, despite the lies that The Nation and Bangkok Post keep repeating over and over again. There was no evidence that Potjaman broke the law either. She was acquitted. Even if one can make the argument that Thaksin was culpable in the sense of breaking a statute as PM through professional inpropriety, he doesn't deserve two years in jail for that, since there was no injury to the state whatsoever.

I love how the Bangkok Post thinks just because a court decided something that makes it the right decision. Courts make mistakes all the time.

Veera and Sondhi's Missed Opportunity

The Nation


Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday shrugged off red-shirt co-leader Veera Musigapong's refusal to act as master of ceremony during the premier's weekly Sunday talk show.

---

"Never mind, the producers will have to invite other people even though I sincerely hoped for Veera's participation," Abhisit said.


He added that he was ready to answer any questions from Veera, who is seen as a staunch supporter of Thaksin and an ardent critic of the Democrat-led coalition.Earlier yesterday, PM's Office Minister Satit Wongnongtaey said Veera had been approached to appear on a talk show with Abhisit. The show, aired on Sundays, is designed to highlight the PM's weekly address in a talk-show format.


---


Veera, though a voluble critic of the Democrat-led coalition, began his political career as a Democrat.

Meanwhile, PM's deputy secretary-general Panitan Wattanayagorn said Veera should have accepted the invitation.

"His absence would only disappoint viewers, plus the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship and the red shirts would only lose their political edge. Abhisit has given Veera a chance to discuss several issues live on television. Veera would have had the opportunity to ask or say anything. Even though Abhisit and Veera have different opinions, they should discuss issues and find new solutions to conflicts in society," he said.

Abhisit would go if invited by Veera, Panitan said.

Similarly, People's Alliance for Democracy leader Sondhi Limthongkul also refused to participate in the show despite being invited by Abhisit.


I think they should have a public discussion together. Part of the problem with Thai politics is that there is never really any public debate by the adversaries. They are usually talking past each other or rely on propaganda mechanisms to get their views across.

I think Abhisit is over-confident despite his over-rated rhetorical skills and Veera is too under-confident. Abhisit's record is horrible so far.

My gut tells me that Abhisit is not sincere about the offer and it was nothing but a bluff to score propaganda points because he knew Veera wouldn't accept. Veera should have accepted.


Bangkok Pundit has some thoughts on the topic.