Murder

A quick post just to note that The Nation reports that the “Department of Special Investigation, public prosecutors and police agreed … to file murder charges against former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and his ex-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban in relation to crackdowns on red-shirt protesters in 2010.”

The charges will be that “Abhisit and Suthep would be charged in connection with the deaths of Phan Khamkong and Kunakorn Srisuwan, as well as with severe injuries sustained by Samorn Maithong.”

This decision will see Abhisit and Suthep summoned by DSI investigators, scheduled for 26 June, “so that they can be handed over to public prosecutors for arraignment.”

While DSI continues to say that “troops involved will not be charged, as they were carrying out orders,” the military brass remains as culpable as Abhisit and Suthep.

Constitutional Court, again

A brief report at The Nation says that the politicized Constitutional Court has decided, on a 5-4 vote, “to proceed with judicial review of two more petitions against the controversial amendment to Article 68 of the charter.”

No prizes for guessing that the petitions are dripping yellow: “the petitions filed by Chamlong Srimuang and five other members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy and by Democrat Party MP Wirat Kalayasiri.”

But the court didn’t issue an injunction to prevent further consideration of amendments to Article 68, it ordered the petitioners to “make 312 copies of their petitions to send to 312 MPs and senators, whom were complained against in the petitions.”

Meanwhile, it is reported that the same court “delayed its deliberation on Pheu Thai MP’s petition for the court to consider the MP status of Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.” The petition relates to “the defence minister issued an order to fire him retroactively as a lecturer of a military cadet school.” The judges wanted more time to consider Abhisit’s submission on the petition.

The court of double standards continues its “work” as the chief defender of the military junta’s rules for the royalist state.

Abhisit and failed credibility

Abhisit Vejjajiva is a tainted political leader. Yet, as a scion of the elite, he maintains a remarkably high opinion of himself, having few qualms about offering uninvited advice.

At The Nation, the Democrat Party leader and former premier has “urged the government … to consider why people had to wear masks to protest against it.” Abhisit reckons “the government should not have dismissed the protesters as the same old group of opponents.”

PPT has already pointed out that the these protesters are old wine in a small, new bottle. Abhisit seems miffed that the Puea Thai government has correctly identified yet another royalist political gimmick.

Yet when Abhisit blathers that the “government should have considered what caused them to come out to protest,” PPT can only wonder if Abhisit ever considered why tens of thousands of red shirts demanded an election in 2009 and 2010?

Abhisit’s response to huge demonstrations was not consideration and reform, but violent crackdown through murderous military action.

Is this a man who should offer advice to an elected government? Obviously not, but Abhisit maintains the disdain arrogance of the royalist elite.

Opposing impunity

In one of our recent posts, PPT commented on the Army’s continuing efforts to maintain the impunity it has historically had when murdering its own citizens. One of the concerns amongst red shirt groups and others who saw family and friends gunned down in 2010 is that some of the proposed amnesty bills will result in political and military leaders being immune from prosecution. Unfortunately, this is a real possibility, and in recent days the families of some of those killed have spoken out.

At Khao Sod it is reported that Elisabetta, sister of murdered photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi has “expressed her opposition to any bill that will grant amnesty to those responsible of the military operation which resulted in her brother′s death.” She states she has particular concerns about a draft bill proposed by deputy premier Chalerm Yubamrung,

which would grant amnesty to all those involved in political cases from 2006 to 2010 including former PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva, who had been charged with murders for his role in ordering crackdown against the Redshirts; the military would also benefit from the amnesty.

She pleaded with ruling party parliamentarians, “insisting that absolving the authorities of their responsibility would destroy every effort she and other families of the victims had been putting into their quest for justice in the last 3 years.” She was not opposed to an amnesty for leaders once they had been convicted.

Elisabetta added that she supported an “amnesty bill that helped political prisoners who were jailed for their roles in the 2010 protests.”

An interesting footnote to the story is that Abhisit has contacted Elisabetta, seeking a meeting. She invited him to join her at the event this report comes from, but he declined.

Meanwhile, at The Nation, it is reported that relatives of some of the victims from 2010 have also expressed opposition to Chalerm’s draft bill and any others that grant amnesty to murderers. Nurse Kamolkade Akkahad was killed, and her family has been at the forefront of moves for accountabuility. Her brother Nattapat and mother Phayao held a press conference to express opposition. They “also called for the removal of Tarit Pengdith, head of the Department of Special Investigation, from its team probing the killings.”

Phayao expressed the family’s position:

first, they confirmed that they did not ignore people now imprisoned due to accusations during “Black May” protests in 1992 as they stated that they would support the people’s bill. Secondly, they reject both the National Reconciliation Bill and the Amnesty Bill, as they don’t want to see culprits get off without being punished for their actions. Thirdly, they said if the head of the DSI (Department of Special Investigation) remained, the truth would not be revealed. DSI chief Tarit Pengdith should resign, as Tarit was part of the Centre of Resolution for the Emergency Situation – and thus a suspect in terms of those responsible for killings.

Nattapat said the government and red-shirt leaders had ignored them: “We feel like being a political piece of meat, that we have no meaning to them – they’re just using us if they feel they want to.” He also said of the military: “I’m not afraid of you”.

Thaksin Shinawatra is on record as having “told his red-shirt followers he favours an amnesty bill that excludes not only protest leaders and those responsible for the crackdowns, but also himself.” If this was not more than a bit of political blarney, Thaksin needs to say it again and again. The state’s impunity must end.

Seeking impunity

With the Army insisting on its innocence, it has responded to the recent court inquest on the death of Fabio Polenghi, a photo-journalist killed in the military’s clearing of red shirts on 19 May 2010.

A report in Khaosod states that the inquest finding that Fabio was killed by a military bullet fired from the direction of the troops “was the first official act which linked the military′s role to death of Mr. Polenghi, after 3 years of silence and denial.”

Almost immediately, however,  Army spokesman Colonel Wintai said  that:

… [while] the bullet may have been fired from the military position at the time, but the security forces had not taken control of all highrise buildings in the area, suggesting that Mr. Fabio might have been killed by unknown militants who took shelter in such buildings.

This claim is a fiction – “Col. Wintai′s remark contradicts with the court inquest which indicated that no other armed elements are believed to be involved in Mr. Polenghi′s death” – it this is the Army brass narrative  maintained since it murderous crackdown.

The Army has always had impunity when it has murdered Thai citizens and the creation of disingenuous accounts is a part of that process, no matter  that the evidence shows snipers, live fire zones and so on.

Colonel Wintai made the brass’s fictional account more bizarre when he said that:

A Guardian photo

the military had not fired their weapons around the time of Mr. Polenghi′s death. As for numerous videos suggesting otherwise, Col. Wintai dismissed them as propaganda “spread by ill-intentioned people” who want to defame the military.

In other words, the Army says believe our nonsensical claims and reject the evidence.

Wintai joins the Army’s tale with the Democrat Party narrative that is designed to protect then premier Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban who ordered the murderous crackdown. He says:

Shooting red shirts

The footage only show events in which the personnel exchanged fire with armed militants who obstruct our operation in the area. This happened long after Fabio′s death….

There is much video evidence and many witness accounts that contradict this fabrication.

Of course, the Army is never prepared to provide any evidence in courts as it seeks to maintain its capacity for murdering civilians in defense of itself and the monarchical state.

The Army responsible for journalist’s death

Fabio Polenghi, an Italian photo-journalist, was shot and killed during the Abhisit Vejjajiva government’s crackdown on red shirt protesters on 19 May 2010.

An inquest has been in train for some time. Now Reuters reports that he was killed “by a bullet fired by a soldier…”.

From Fabio Polenghi’s funeral in Bangkok on 24 May 2010

Karom Ponthaklang, a lawyer for the journalist’s family, is reported to have told reporters: “The court ruled that orders given by Prime Minister Abhisit and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep that day led to Fabio’s death…”.

The lawyer urged that the Department of Special Investigations “press charges against Abhisit Vejjajiva and [his then deputy] Suthep Thaugsuban.”

Fabio’s sister, Elisabetta added that those held responsible for his death should be “at least the person leading the operation on the ground.”

Like many others, PPT believes that those responsible must be held accountable and that responsibility rests with the civilians and military brass who ordered the crackdown using military weapons,declared live fire zones and authorized the use of live ammunition.

AI on LM

The Bangkok Post reports that Amnesty International,which once had its representative Benjamin Zawacki in strong support of monarchy and lese majeste, is now taking a more consistent stand on lese majeste and freedom of expression.

Noting that freedom of expression in “Thailand continues to be curtailed, primarily through the lese majeste law and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act,” Amnesty International says that there are “five issues that are marked by human rights violations in the country.” These are:

They are the armed conflict in the deep South; lack of accountability for political violence; freedom of expression; refugees and migrants; and the death penalty.

On the lese majeste and 2007 Computer Crimes laws it notes that “heavy jail sentences for perceived insults to the monarchy” remain in place and that challenges to the laws or calls for amendment have so far failed and that, ominously, the Constitutional Court upheld the lese majeste law.

The Post report  states that the number of lese majeste cases in Thailand jumped from 33 in 2005 to 126 in 2007, 164 in 2009 and then 478 in 2010. It seems, although no data are available, that these numbers have dropped precipitously since the 2011 election.

The short AI annual report for 2012 on Thailand also notes that:

After a court found security forces responsible for the May 2010 killing of UDD protester Phan Khamkong, murder charges were lodged against former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban in December. They were the first officials to be charged in connection with the 2010 political violence.

 

Thaksin, law and sincerity

It is sometimes difficult for PPT to take the Abhisit Vejjajiva-dominated Democrat Party seriously. Sincerity is in short supply amongst many political leaders in Thailand, but seems in especially short supply when Abhisit is involved in justifying its use of the military to suppress political opposition in 2009 and 2010.

Abhisit’s political elasticity

On 2010,  The Nation reports that:

The ruling Pheu Thai Party yesterday demanded that opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban apologise to the families of those killed and injured in the 2010 red-shirt riots….

Pheu Thai Party deputy leader Anusorn Iamsa-ard said Abhisit and Suthep owed the red shirts a long-overdue apology because they had ordered security officials to use real bullets to shoot at the protesters during the crowd-control operation.

We think hell will freeze over before either man would admit any responsibility.

Indeed,  also at The Nation, it is reported that far from apologizing or admitting any missteps, Abhisit’s party blames Thaksin Shinawatra for everything! Their call is for:

… former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra … to admit to his alleged wrongdoings and respect the courts – to uphold the rule of law in Thailand.

They said Thaksin had been a major source of political conflict in recent years.

Not the Army, not the Democrat Party, not the palace’s old men scheming, not the royalist courts, not the military junta, not the dirty backroom deals, but Thaksin.

Their comments were prompted by Thaksin’s remarks on the “post-coup Assets Examination Committee (AEC)’s investigation against him were unfair.” There is nodoubt that they were contrived and unfair. This isn’t to say that Thaksin is squeaky clean; he isn’t. But the assets case was a fix and the cases where Thaksin should have been pursued were dropped or ignored for reasons that implicate those on the royalist side.

Abhisit is reported as stating that “he was saddened by the fact Thaksin could not admit his wrongdoings.”

Abhisit also claimed that Thaksin “should declare that he does not support a draft amnesty law proposed by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung.”

On this latter point, Abhisit must have prepared his statement in advance for the the Bangkok Post reports that:

Deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra appeared to beat a tactical retreat on Sunday night when he told his red-shirt followers he favours an amnesty bill that excludes not only protest leaders and those responsible for the crackdowns, but also himself.

The report adds:

Thaksin’s announcement ran counter to a proposal by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung in a bill he plans to file with the House of Representatives tomorrow.

The amnesty issue is certainly not finished, but Thaksin seems to have again demonstrated Abhisit’s failures.

All Abhisit can do is accuse Thaksin and the red-shirt leaders of telling lies.

Adding to the remarkable ingenuousness  demonstrated by the Democrat Party when they demand Thaksin accept laws, another report at The Nation has this eye-opener:

Democrat heavyweights have threatened to sue Department of Special Investigation director-general Tarit Pengdith if he refuses to review his agency’s decision to press charges against Democrats over donations to the party.

Laws for Thaksin seem acceptable for the Democrat Party but not for them.

Updated: Abhisit and political toxicity

As the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) brings further charges against  former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban related to the 2010 military crackdown on red shirts, Abhisit’s Democrat Party continues its retreat from reform.

Who’s the boss?

In one report at The Nation, Abhisit and Suthep were summoned by the DSI to hear charges that they conspired:

with others to take actions that could be expected to lead to murder in connection with the killing of a boy, Kunakorn Srisuwan.

They also heard charges that they conspired:

with others in actions leading to attempted murder in connection with the attack on Samorn Maithong, which left him seriously wounded.

More charges may follow as the Criminal Court completes more inquests into more deaths during the May 2010.

Meanwhile, Abhisit and his coterie have managed to see off calls for the reform of the failed Democrat Party. At The Nation, it is reported that “a reform plan proposed by deputy party leader Alongkorn Ponlaboot” has been deferred.

More significantly, “[t]he party called off a [pre-arranged] press conference to announce its decision…”. Both Alongkorn and Abhisit were said to be unable to attend, meaning that the party is split. This is confirmed when the party spokesman, an Abhisit acolyte, must claim that Alongkorn:

was not upset about the decision, insisting that there was no rift within the party and executive members were disciplined and did not express disagreement outside the party.

Abhisit’s group, which has led the party to repeated electoral defeats and which owed its period in government to the military and its guns, refuses to acknowledge its failures and political toxicity.

Update: In a recent story at The Nation, Alongkorn expresses his anger as he “slammed his party colleagues for accusing him of lacking ideology and principle, and for saying he … follows in the Pheu Thai Party’s footsteps of ‘intoxicating people with populist policies’.” He states he “was attacked” by some in the party “because I have disseminated a reform plan entitled ‘The party reform blueprint and 21 years of election defeat’ in a straightforward manner since I do not want the blueprint to be distorted.” Meanwhile, Abhisit blathered about the party needing more time to think about reform, meaning no reform that is not Abhisit’s proposal.

Panic, censorship and the Democrat Party

W e have already posted several times on the continuing and seemingly heightened political struggle as disgruntled royalists seek to undermine the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. Part of the increase in political tension revolves around issues such as constitutional reform and amnesty. The most recent panic for royalists was Yingluck’s speech in Mongolia airing several truths about the anti-democrats who oppose her. That panic attack saw some nasty and deeply sexist remarks and crazy incantations of treason. At the same time, PPT indicated its position on the defamation regime.

So we are dismayed to read at the Bangkok Post that Information and Communication Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap has said that he will seek “to silence websites that allow criticism of the prime minister.” This is dumb politics and a stupid over-reaction that allows the yellow-hued lot to prance about talking about “democracy” and “freedom of expression.” Of course, these elitists have no ground to stand on these issues but the minister has allowed them to make these claims.

That the Democrat Party has jumped on Anudith’s silly statement with glee is to be expected. However,  it is more than a little nauseating to listen to its leader Abhisit Vejjajiva claim that Anudith’s statement is a “violation of democratic principles…”. That it might be, but for Abhisit to lecture anyone on democracy is an affront.

Neither the Democrat Party nor Abhisit know anything at all about democracy and their track record is of undemocratic action.

When Democrat Party deputy spokeswoman Mallika Boonmeetrakul lectures that the “minister had no power to close websites, which could be shut down only by a court order…”, this is a practices that her party repeatedly flouted when in government.

When she says that “Users of social media, along with the press, have the right to freedom of expression and to comment on and criticise public figures, including the prime minister,” Mallika ignores the Abhisit regime’s massive censorship of all opposition media.

The Abhisit regime was undemocratic at birth and its time in government was the most repressive for three decades.

Anudith needs to be criticized, but not by a Democrat Party that is disingenuous and pathetic.