Updated: (At last) Yingluck stands up

PPT has determined that spines can be strengthened and made upright. At last, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has dared to speak on things controversial! Twice!

First, at the Bangkok Post Yingluck not only “downplayed a red shirt protest outside the Constitution Court,” but noted that “those involved had the right to demonstrate as long as they did so within the law.”

The report notes that her support for the protesters saw her thumbing her nose “Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva for her to instruct the red shirts to stop their protest against the court.” Abhisit has a preference for sending Army snipers to end protests, at least when the protesters aren’t yellow-shirted ultra-royalists.

Abhisit’s position was supported by palace and military flunkey Meechai Ruchupan, who “urged all MPs and senators to respect the charter court’s authority.” Meechai charged that “the country would be in total chaos if agencies did not recognise the authority one another’s authority.”

We had to cite that because even Chicken Little could tell a tale that made sense to some. Meechai is in a singular space characterized by delusional absurdity. What else can it be when he asks: “What if the court refuses to make a ruling based on a law? … What will be left of the country?” All we can suggest is that Meechai open his eyes and look around at the world of judicial double standards that defines the amart.

So when Yingluck says: “Any protest activity that is in line with the law can proceed,” she is taking on the amart. That backbone has been missing since her election.

As it turns out, Yingluck made her brief comments before leaving for a three day official visit to Mongolia. There she made a second statement demonstrating the development of some political spine.

Khao Sod reproduces Yingluck’s speech on “Thailand’s stance in the sustainable promotion of democracy alongside the development of people at the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia…”.

Her speech begins with her affirmation that “democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand.” She refers to democracy having been formed in processes where “… many people have sacrificed their blood and lives in order to protect and build a democracy.”

She acknowledges that those who oppose democracy “grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom” and that significance of “the changes in my own country where the people power in Thailand has brought me here today.”

In Thailand, “[a]n elected government which won two elections with a majority was overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a decade to regain their democratic freedom.” Well, five years….

On April and May 2010,she notes that:

Many innocent people were shot dead by snipers, and the movement crushed with the leaders jailed or fled abroad. Even today, many political victims remain in jail.

This latter statement is remarkable, indicating the obstacles that her elected government faces in bailing red shirts. She explains:

It is clear that elements of anti-democratic regime still exist. The new constitution, drafted under the coup leaders led government, put in mechanisms to restrict democracy.

A good example of this is that half of the Thai Senate is elected, but the other half is appointed by a small group of people. In addition, the so called independent agencies have abused the power that should belong to the people, for the benefit of the few rather than to the Thai society at large.

… Also important is closing gaps between rich and poor.

She concludes:

… I hope that the sufferings of my family, the families of the political victims, and the families of the 91 people, who lost their lives in defending democracy during the bloodshed in May 2010, will be the last.

These statements may seem like a statement of the obvious but they are sure to sound like a declaration of political war to the anti-democrats, yellow shirts and other royalists.

PPT hopes that this demonstration of political courage is more than a flash in the pan.

Update: As we noted in the next to last paragraph, the anti-democrats were sure to hate this speech. The hissing began almost immediately, with the Bangkok Post reporting that the racist royalist flunkey Vasit Dejkunjorn “accused the prime minister of ‘telling a lie’ and of uttering ‘disgusting’ comments that tried to blame others for the misconduct of her brother.” Vasit, of course, favors military coups and undemocratic politics. Joining him in this criticism was loudmouth Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut who also “accused the prime minister of intentionally distorting facts. Those included the reasons behind the coup after Thaksin abused his power and interfered in independent agencies, and the death of soldiers and protesters in the May bloodshed three years ago.” Chavanond also favors military coups and undemocratic politics.

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post’s op-ed scribe Veera Prateepchaikul managed to conceive Yingluck’s speech abhorring military coups as an expression of bitterness. Perhaps Veera’s claims would be taken more seriously if he too were bitter about the military’s 2006 coup rather than seeking to justify it.

Yingluck has finally acknowledged the reasons she was elected and why the electorate rejected the coup and the military’s puppetry in hoisting Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrat Party to power. Her opponents see this as a throwing down of the gauntlet and immediately adopt undemocratic, chauvinist and royalist armor for their fight. As we have long said, Yingluck’s election was never accepted by this lot, and they are forever spoiling for an opportunity to bring down yet another elected government.

Democrat Party or Party Abhisit?

It is telling that Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is opposing widespread calls for the reform of his party. That might be expected as calls for reform are usually attached to quieter grumbles that Abhisit is politically tainted by his term as leader, association with the military and his murderous attempts to crush the red shirts in 2009 and 2010. At the same time, his resistance and his control of the party via a few elite, English-educated cronies is indicative of his authoritarian streak and his pompous stubbornness when in government.

Oddly, in one report at the Bangkok Post, Abhisit is declared to have “backed proposals by his deputy to reform the party’s structure ahead of the next general election.” The most recent calls for change have come from deputy party leader Alongkorn Ponlaboot and party stalwart Bhichai Rattakul.

Abhisit downplayed Alongkorn’s suggestions lumping them in with “different ideas for party reform” put forward by “several party MPs.” He has been even more dismissive of Bhichai, having others claim that the senior figure is in bed with the party’s “enemies.”

Abhisit demands that reform “remain an internal affair at this stage” and arguing that such change and debate “could be exploited by the party’s opponents to create conflict among members and confusion among the public…”. In other words, Abhisit is trying to squash reform and in doing so threatens his own tenuous position and risks a party split. He is supported by several party members clustered around former leader Chuan Leekpai, who has no track record of reform or change in the royalist party.

Abhisit’s line is that “party members should focus on their role as the opposition to monitor the government…”, suggesting to PPT that he is content to have his party stay in opposition with no new ideas and stifling any alternative voices.

The negativity associated with Abhisit’s stonewalling is highlighted in another report at the Bangkok Post that refers to the Democrat Party having “been pounded from all sides to undergo reform and become more appealing to voters, [but] the Democrat Party is finding that any efforts it makes to instigate change are meeting with resistance.” The resistance from the Party Abhisit cronies.

This report refers to the calls for change being attacked by Chuan, using the same language as Abhisit as he “insists the party’s internal affairs should not be laundered in public.” Heaven forbid that the royalist party should engage in public debate! It seems that the party that provided no democracy in government can not allow democracy in its own structures.

The report states that many in the party:

want party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to listen to members who are not in his inner circle…. Mr Abhisit’s inner circle consists of young, foreign-educated MPs such as Songkhla’s Sirichoke Sopha and party list-MP Chavanond Intarakomalyasut. Other stalwarts with close ties to Mr Abhisit are members of the so-called ”Gang of Four” _ MP for Trang Sathit Wongnongtoey, party list-MPs Anchalee Wanich Theppabutr and Siriwan Prasajaksatru and MP for Phitsanulok Juti Krairiksh.

This group is the one that stood behind Abhisit in his kowtowing to the military and his government’s murderous attacks on red shirts, demanding that there be no compromise with the “enemy.” This group seems to be the one arguing that:

Only Mr Abhisit, Mr Chuan and former party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban know what the Democrats’ key problems requiring reform are.

Given that these are the opponents of reform, this claim is nothing more than recognition that the Democrat Party, which abandoned democratic ideas, is essentially owned by a coterie of elitists and royalists who run it as a fiefdom.

Learning not to rebel

With all of the talk and meetings currently going on about amnesty, it does look like something may emerge. How good a decree, bill or whatever it will be remains to be seen as the horse-trading continues.

There’s been some interesting developments. One story has a “red-yellow” alliance apparently having “reached an agreement to press ahead with a pair of political amnesty bills,” with this soon poo-pooed as little more than media hype; another has Thaksin Shinawatra expressing his concern for “ordinary red shirts” still locked up from the Abhisit Vejjajiva years, with Thaksin denigrating Abhisit; and we have accounts of soldier’s wives and Democrat Party ideologues sprouting amnesty ideas. The basic divide seems to still be about who is included.

Yellow shirts, including the widow of Colonel Romklao Thuwatham, Nicha demanding that “an amnesty bill must not cover criminal offenders or those implicated in lese majeste cases.” Many red shirts are demanding that it must include all political prisoners, including those charged or convicted of lese majeste.

In all of this, however, the comment that struck us as most telling was by loudmouth spokesman for the Democrat Party Chavanond Intarakomalyasut.

He is reported as stating that his “party was willing to seek a solution for the country with others and support an amnesty bill that would cover ordinary protesters. This should cover those who violated the emergency decree as well as the Internal Security Act.” He added the usual disclaimer that “the party opposed granting amnesty to those accused and convicted of physical assault and corruption.” The last bit is simply about Thaksin.

Of course, one has to take the Democrat Party’s claims on this with a grain or so of salt as they were the ones who locked red shirts up and let yellow shirts roam free.

Yet it is Chavanond’s next statement that takes the cake:

He said those being granted amnesty should be educated and made to understand that they should not violate the emergency decree and the Internal Security Act again, otherwise the problem would resurface.

It seems to us that this bunch of toffs just can’t help themselves. If red shirts aren’t “educated” and “made to understand,” they just might rebel against the ruling class again! Can’t have that!

We are not sure how this “education” would proceed, but it seems clear that Chavanond and his lot have seen locking up protesters as a way of “making them understand” their station in life as servants and phrai of the amart/ruling class. It is class war, where Chavanond thinks his lot are born to rule over the rabble of the lower classes (described once by the wealthy Korn Chatikavanij as the “great unwashed,” a term he picked up at Eton).

That they should rebel against toffs is dangerous and a sign that they are uneducated as well as unruly. For the toffs like this, the idea that the people should be sovereign is anathema.

Monarchy, harassment and playing by the elite’s rules

Sathit Wongnongtoey, an Abhisit Vejjajiva acolyte who was once a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and responsible for, amongst other things, shutting down opposition and red shirt media, is now just a humble Democrat Party MP and loyalist from Trang. At The Nation, however, he demonstrates his fidelity with Abhisit in some revealing remarks on the murder charges against Abhisit and Suthep Thaugsuban..

Apart from the standard line that Thaksin Shinawatra – described by Sathit as “a man in a faraway land” – “has been pulling the strings behind the investigators’ move to press [the] murder charges…”, he asserts that the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) boss, the Eel, Tharit Pengdit is in the pay of Thaksin. He must be, Sathit claims, because he once did the Abhisit regime’s bidding. Far be it from PPT to defend the Eel, but was he also in the pay of the Democrat Party when his organization jailed and charged hundreds of red shirts?

Sathit proclaims that DSI “must serve His Majesty the King and the public, not one particular person…”. Ignoring the obviously odd notion of public service amongst bureaucrats, the claim that DSI must serve the king is a decidedly feudal turn, invoking notions from a pre-1932 Thailand.

Loudmouth Democrat Party spokesman Chavanont Intarakomalyasut had a slightly different take on the charges, claiming they were “nothing short of harassment in order to push the opposition into accepting the amnesty law.” He did come back to Sathit’s idea when he warned: “Civil servants who wrongfully serve politicians must be held responsible and face the consequence of their actions…”.

We can expect far more of these kinds of statements over the next few weeks, not least because the Democrat Party ideologues believe that killing opposition protesters is a kind of duty demanded of royalist governments and that washing this soiled laundry in public is something just not done in ruling circles. Again, this ruffian bunch that adheres to Thaksin are simply not aware of the elite’s rules, and they will have to be punished (again).

Updated: Abhisit and Suthep to face charges

With the battle lines between royalists and pro-Thaksin Shinawatra forces ever more clearly (re)drawn, a new phase in the struggle begins with the local and Reuters reports that former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then deputy Suthep Thaugsuban are charged with “giving orders to use live ammunition that led to civilian deaths during a military crackdown on an anti-government protest in May 2010.”

The good old days at the Army Club

Department of Special Investigation (DSI) boss Tharit Pengdit announced the decision and said it was “influenced by a court ruling on September 17 in the inquest into the death of taxi driver Phan Kamthong during the protests. The inquest found that troops, acting on orders from state officials, killed Phan.” According to the Bangkok Post, the “decision to charge Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep was made jointly by a tripartite team of investigators from the DSI, police and prosecution…”.

Reuters says that the two were “charged under article 288 of the criminal code. If found guilty, they could face the death penalty or up to life in prison. Neither was present when the charges were read out.” Abhisit and Suthep will be summoned for questioning and to hear the charges against them on December 12. The Post adds that the letter states that:

the two would be formally notified and questioned and would be released without conditions  afterwards…. This practice was in line with the Criminal Procedures Code and the Special Cases Investigation Act, because the two men were former holders of high-level political positions.

The Post has a slightly different account, noting:

The use of weapons by soldiers followed written orders from the CRES, of which Mr Suthep was director and acting under the orders of Mr Abhisit, who stayed at the CRES headquarters all the time during the military crackdown on the protesters.

Mr Tarit said this was an important case because the death was caused by state authorities, necessitating investigation under Article 150 of the Criminal Procedures Code.

Democrat party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut complained of the political bias of the DSI and declared: “we will fight back.”

Suthep Thaugsuban (Bangkok Post photo)

Tharit explained that these charges “would be the first legal charges over the more than 90 deaths that occurred during the 2010 mass rallies.” However, there is a sting in the tail of the Bangkok Post report, noting that in the case involving the death of the taxi driver Phan,

… the court did not specify who among the soldiers fired the fatal shots.  Moreover, Article 70 of the Criminal Code states that those who act on the order of their commanders are protected and immune from punishment…. Therefore, no charges would be brought against the soldiers, the DSI chief said.

This might seem like a deal with the military. However, are military leaders who were involved in the decision-making bodies under the Abhisit regime also getting a “get out of jail free card”?

Update: From The Telegraph:

“This is just the beginning of a long process and there’s no guarantee that the courts will rule against Mr Abhisit,” Pitch Pongsawat, Professor of Political Science at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, told The Daily Telegraph.

Instead, it may be an attempt to pressure the Democrat Party into agreeing to the ruling Pheu Thai party’s plans to amend the constitution. “My gut feeling is that this is all about political negotiations behind the scenes,” said Professor Pitch.

PPT isn’t entirely convinced it is about negotiations. We are inclined to think of it as part of the war.

Abhisit’s continuing mendaciousness

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has long been short on truthfulness. His latest foray into his parallel world of twisted words and actions is revealing of habitual conjuring of propagandized unreality.

The Bangkok Post cites Abhisit’s latest conjuring. To most observers the Democrat Party is deeply embedded within the dinosaur movement Pitak Siam. By their own words and deeds the Democrat Party has shown its continuing reliance on anti-democratic political movements, just as it has relied on the anti-democrats in the palace, military and ultra-royalists in the past.

So when Abhisit is “demanding the government take responsibility if violence erupts at the Pitak Siam anti-government rally this Saturday,” it becomes clear that Abhisit and his party are hoping for violence and the catalyst of a 2008-like movement against the elected government, again.

Abhisit’s mendacious statements were legendary when he was premier, and nothing has changed. When the Puea Thai “government claimed it knew of some parties who planned to create untoward incidents during the protest,” Abhisit sprang to the defense of his “party,”  daring the government to crack down “to prevent violence.” Of course, he relishes the idea that ultra-royalists will become violent so that his party can benefit.

The tendentiousness of Abhisit’s claims are immediately indicated by Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut’s claim that “the government of trying to block people from joining the Pitak Siam rally.” Clearly, Abhisit’s blaming of the government is seen as nothing by Democrat Party for undemocratic politics.

Meanwhile, the government and red shirt qualms regarding the plans by the dinosaur movement were well-expressed by “Deputy Commerce Minister and red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikuar said yesterday the anti-government rally would not be able to overthrow the government in one day without a ‘special situation’.” He observed that such a situation was possible “with support from the party that had overthrown the past governments of Thaksin [Shinawatra], Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat.”

What party might that be? The Democrat Party can be excluded for they are followers, not movers and shakers. We suspect he points to the military-palace coalition.

ICC in Bangkok II

A couple of days ago PPT posted about officers and investigators of the International Criminal Court being in Bangkok and holding meetings regarding the possibility of investigating the events of April and May 2010 . It does seem that the local media has been pretty quiet on this story.

The Bangkok Post, however, has finally mentioned the ICC visit which red shirts hope will lead to the government extending jurisdiction to the ICC.

Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul is reported to have “urged the government to accept the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over the 2010 clashes between security forces and red-shirt protesters.”

That is a huge leap forward in seeking to end state impunity.

Surapong apparently made this statement following a meeting “with ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to discuss the steps Thailand would be required to take if it is to accept ICC jurisdiction.”

Anticipating criticism from those who oppose scrutiny, Surapong “insisted that by extending the jurisdiction to the ICC, the government would not be inviting the international tribunal to interfere in the country’s internal affairs.” He argued that an ICC investigation could “deliver justice to those who died…”.

Several red shirt parliamentarians have supported granting the ICC jurisdiction.

Democrat Party Spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut indicated that he lacks even basic logic when he babbled that the 2010 Army crackdown operations in April and May “is an internal affair and it has been investigated under Thai law. The ICC can’t step in,…” before immediately blabbering that “the Thaksin Shinawatra administration’s war on drugs did” come under the ICC. His final “position” seemed to be that “the government … ratify the ICC treaty and allow it to look into all cases of ‘crimes against humanity’.”

Why? Because, and we use his quoted words because the lack of logic is breathtaking:

If we ratify the treaty, I think Thaksin will appear before the ICC before former prime minister Abhisit [Vejjajiva] and former deputy prime minister Suthep [Thaugsuban]….

Of course, the DemoPADs are hamstrung on this issue because they have taken a war on drugs case against Thaksin to the ICC, so the internal issue claim is meaningless twaddle.

The question that is paramount now is whether the red shirts can bring sufficient pressure on Yingluck Shinawatra and her timid government to push for ICC investigation.

The Democrat Party: an idea-free zone

Is the Democrat Party unable to have an original idea? Are the leaders of that failed party so elitist-lazy that all they can do more than plagiarize others and come up with silly “campaigns”? This is a bit of a hotch-potch post as we attempt to catch=up with the actions of the Democrat Party.

When Abhisit Vejjajiva was hoisted to the premier’s position and his party made government in a shoddy, backroom deal that was brokered by the military, that government essentially copied the policies it had previously denigrated as “populist.” In opposition, it has pretty much PADified its policies and attacks on the government.

As PPT noted in an earlier post, Korn Chatikavanij has become an activist Democrat Party leader. The last time we saw him campaigning was when he was supporting PAD’s illegal actions in 2008. PPT has long pointed out more than once that Korn is a supporter of the People’s Alliance for Democracy. This English born, public school and Oxford educated scion of an aristocrat families who has also supported the use of draconian measures against protesters (but not his PAD buddies, of course). He was also  a quiet support for the 2006 coup.

Korn’s politics is deeply yellow-royalist and it is thus no surprise to see at The Nation that Korn has promoted the “taking back” of red as a political color. Quite a yawn, but it is just lame Facebook “activism.” Korn’s claim is that “every Thai has the right to wear red, which is one of the colours of the national flag.” Korn’s bit of royalist nationalism lacks any grounding in either the flag’s political history or the reason for the red shirts adopting the color.

If Korn’s “take back red” campaign seems lazy, childish and pathetic, another story at The Nation suggests a more significant Democrat Party activity. It is also a massive plagiarism of its opponents.

The Democrat Party has:

called on those adversely affected by the war on drugs policy implemented during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration to file a class-action lawsuit against the fugitive former premier at the court.

Notorious former Democrat Party foreign minister and PAD supporter Kasit Piromya is claimed to have:

filed a complaint at the ICC [International Criminal Court] in the Netherlands over the war on drugs, which allegedly led to the ‘silencing’ killings of thousands of drug suspects.

Loudmouth Democrat Party Spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut “said those who believed they were damaged parties and had not received justice” in regard to the War on Drugs.

That is true, but PPT can’t but point out that the Democrat Party is simply following the red shirts to the ICC, demonstrating that they are unimaginative but also treating the Thai public with contempt.

We don’t say this to diminish the immensity of the deaths during the War on Drugs. Rather, we think the Democrat Party considers the public stupid. After all, it the Party was interested in this issue, why was it that it did nothing about it during its period in government from late 2008 to mid-2011? Even the military-backed government of 2006-7 didn’t take any determined action. Why the sudden interest?

We also wonder how the Democrat Party would react to an investigation of the War on Drugs that reveals these facts (and more here) for an international audience:

In a 4 December 2002 speech on the eve of his birthday, King Bhumibol noted the rise in drug use and called for a “War on Drugs.” Privy Councillor Phichit Kunlawanit called on the government to use its majority in parliament to establish a special court to deal with drug dealers, stating that “if we execute 60,000 the land will rise and our descendants will escape bad karma”….

King Bhumibol, in a 2003 birthday speech, praised Thaksin and criticized those who counted only dead drug dealers while ignoring deaths caused by drugs.

“ไอ้การชัยชนะของการปราบไอ้ยาเสพติดนี่ ดีที่ปราบ แล้วก็ที่เขาตำหนิบอกว่า เอ้ย คนตาย ตั้ง ๒,๕๐๐ คน อะไรนั่น เรื่องเล็ก ๒,๕๐๐ คน ถ้านายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ นายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ ทุกปี ๆ จดไว้นะ มีมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คนที่ตาย” “Victory in the War on Drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drug trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll.”

Bhumibol also asked the commander of the police to investigate the killings. Police Commander Sant Sarutanond reopened investigations into the deaths, and again claimed that few of the deaths were at the hands of the police.

PPT thinks this set of murders deserves real and serious investigation and prosecution. However, we don’t think the Democrat Party is in any way serious: they did nothing when in power and they are unlikely to have thought through the full implications of the War on Drugs.  Any threat to the impunity enjoyed by state officials also threatens the patrician royalist party and its supporters.

Panicked on the monarchy

There’s a long and interesting report at Bloomberg Businessweek by Daniel Ten Kate worthy of attention. For those who want to see political change in Thailand, it will be demoralizing to learn that:

Only about three of 500 House of Representatives members support a bill that reduces jail terms for people convicted of royal insults, according to Jarupan Kuldiloke, one of the members backing the effort. The ruling party has declined to endorse it.

Well we all knew that the Puea Thai Party under the non-leadership of Yingluck Shinawatra has an “aversion” to doing the right thing on lese majeste. Kate cites academic Michael Connors in asserting that this aversion “may bolster its [the government's] monarchist credentials…” and avert its ouster. This is a myth. As PPT has highlighted since the day the Puea Thai government was elected, no Shinawatra is ever going to be allowed back into the royalist elite. This government is already on the way out via judicial coup.

That all but three MPs are deluded and spineless is a sad reflection on a parliament that has existed, on and off  for almost 80 years. After all, the bill doesn’t abolish the law, it just makes it less draconian.

It seems that the bill on lese majeste mentioned is the result of the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112 “petition with about 30,000 signatures from members of the public, triple the amount required by the constitution for lawmakers to consider legislative initiatives.”

If the Puea Thai Party are spineless and neglecting their political base, the royalist Democrat Party is playing to its ultra-royalist political ballast, with its loudmouthed spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut asserting that hsi anti-democratic party is “not supporting the people who use this to attack the royal family…. The royal family needs protection.” Yes, the party of royalists has long supported the country’s richest “institution.”

That’s why the number of lese majeste cases surged while the Democrat Party served as government following a judicial coup in 2008 and with the support of the military and palace.

Kate then quotes Komsan Phokong, said to be “a law lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University.” In fact, Komsan is a member of the ultra-royalist and neo-fascist Sayam Prachapiwat group, and rants on foreigners and lese majeste:

Foreigners shouldn’t interfere with our issue because they don’t understand us…. The status of our king and other kings in western countries are totally different. Our king is the center of people’s hearts. They can’t use their standards to judge our case.

Quoting political fruit loops like Komsan is easy journalistic pickings.

Reuters/Chaiwat Subprasom

More significant is the observation by Charnvit Kasetsiri, “a former rector of Thammasat University who helped present the bill to parliament”:

Even if rejected, the proposals are useful for educating people about the need to change Article 112 before challenges escalate as the succession to King Bhumibol approaches, according to

“On the surface Thailand looks like a land of smiles,” Charnvit said. “But deep down in cyberspace, with the coming of the new world, it’s rather messy.”

In the context of this notion of adult education, readers may wish to read this piece on Overcoming Fear of Monarchy.

Double standards at the Office of the Ombudsman

The Nation has a story that raises the question of double standards. The account relates to what the biased report declares:

Deputy Agriculture Minister Natthawut Saikua was forced to face his past when the Office of the Ombudsman questioned him about his ethics and whether they allowed him to participate in the 2010 red-shirt protests.

This claim relates to the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime’s charge of “terrorism” against Nattawut.

Nattawutt (L) and Jatuporn (Bangkok Post photo)

Not surprisingly, Nattawut’s political opponents – the ones who had him charged – are now calling for his resignation from cabinet because the Ombudsman maintained that Nattawut’s “ethics” were flawed.

Fellow Puea Thai MP and red shirt Korkaew Pikulthong defended Natthawut, making the all too obvious point that the constitution “clearly stipulates the presumption of innocence and Natthawut has not been convicted of any wrongdoing…”.

Instead, the Ombudsman became judge and jury and offered:

the opinion that Natthawut might have violated the code of ethics for office holders because of the Civil Court verdict on his involvement in agitating crowds beyond a peaceful rally as sanctioned by the Constitution. Natthawut was indicted and is being tried for terrorism.

How the Ombudsmen can take such a position is unexplained and probably inexplicable. In fact, PPT rejects these charges for all engaged in political opposition (including those against yellow shirts).

Spokesman for the so-called Democrat Party Chavanond Intarakomalyasut then chimed in, saying that “the Ombudsman’s report was clear: Natthawut was unfit to hold a ministerial portfolio.” He added, “He should be removed from the Cabinet…”.

Kasit

Remind us, did the Democrat Party take the same position on its foreign minister Kasit Piromya was charged with “terrorism” for the 2008 airports occupations that Kasit described as “a lot of fun.” The charges against Kasit came in July 2009 and he remained foreign minister until the end of the Abhisit government. The charges were only dropped in March 2011 as the Abhisit regime pressured police.

Back when he was charged, Kasit said he “would be ready to comply with the law but he would not stop working [as foreign minister] and he had informed [then] Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of his intention not to leave the office.” Abhisit stated that “Kasit could go on working as foreign minister…. He said it would be too soon to say whether Kasit would be removed from Cabinet.”

Sounds like The Democrat Party and loudmouth spokesman Chavanond better count their standards. Our count is at least two.

Remind us, did the Office of the Ombudsman issue any statement on Kasit? Did it question his ethics? Did it state that he should step down? Not as far as we can tell. PPT draws a blank when we search for evidence that the Ombudsman was even-handed.

Double standards? Sure looks like it.