Opposing the Constitutional Court

24 03 2014

The Bangkok Post includes a story about a “group of academics calling themselves the Assembly for the Defence of Democracy (AFDD) yesterday issued a statement opposing the Constitution Court’s ruling to void the results of the Feb 2 general election.” We thought this statement well worth reproducing in full, and nicked it from Asia Provocateur:

Statement of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD)

We Oppose the Ruling of the Constitutional Court Intended to Render the 2 February 2014 Election Unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court has ruled on a matter forwarded to them by the Ombudsman under Article 245 (1) of the Constitution. The matter in question was whether or not the general parliamentary election held on 2 February 2014, in line with the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013), was constitutional. In a statement announced by the Chief Spokesperson  of the Constitutional Court, the Court commented that there were 28 electoral districts in which there were no candidates who submitted applications to contend in the 2 February 2014 election.  The Court further commented that elections cannot be held in those districts after 2 February because the effect would be that the general election was not held simultaneously on the same day across the kingdom. Therefore, the Court ruled that the 2 February 2014 election was not one that was held simultaneously on the same day throughout the kingdom. The effect of this ruling is to make the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013), particularly the setting of the date of 2 February 2014 for the election, unconstitutional and in contradiction with Article 108, paragraph two, of the Constitution. It is the view of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD) that this ruling of the Constitutional Court ruling contains the following problems of constitutionality and political legitimacy:

1. Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of Thailand stipulates that the Ombudsman can propose a matter to the Constitutional Corut when he thinks that there is “any provision of law that begs the question of constitutionality.” Therefore, the substance of the case that the Ombudsman has the discretion to send to the Constitutional Court to consider must be a “provision of law.” But in this case, the clearly visible problem is that the substance of the case is “the holding of the general election.” When the substance of the case is not a “provision of law,” the Ombudsman cannot propose the case to the Constitutional Court, and if the Ombudsman forwards such a matter to the Constitutional Court, it is the duty of the Court to refuse to accept the request for examination. The acceptance of the aforementioned matter by the Constitutional Court is unconstitutional in line with Article 245 (1) and is equivalent to the Constitutional Court singlehandedly amending the Constitution and altering the substance of the permitted cases for examination under Article 245 (1). There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the Constitutional Court the authority to do so.

2. Article 108, paragraph two, of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand prescribes that, “The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within the period of not less than forty five days but not more than sixty days as from the date of the dissolution of the House of Representatives and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.” The facts show that the election day was set for the same date (2 February 2014) throughout the whole kingdom in the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013). The aforementioned setting of the date of the general election was therefore constitutional.

But in this case it appears that the Constitutional Court has used evidence of events that occurred after, and were unrelated to the setting of the date of the general election, as the basis of their examination. In other words, the Court used the fact of candidates not being able to register to compete in the election in 28 electoral districts to claim that if a general election was held in these districts after 2 February 2014, it would mean that the general election was not held on the same day simultaneously throughout the kingdom. The Court made this claim even though the Constitution does not mandate that the general election must occur on the same day throughout the whole kingdom. There may be acts of god or other unavoidable incidents which may make holding an election on the same day as the rest of the country impossible in some districts. The Constitution stipulates only that the election day must be “set” to be the same day simultaneously throughout the kingdom. Therefore, the setting of the date was already done constitutionally.

3. In addition, there is also the fact that, on the whole, the 2 February 2014 election passed in an orderly fashion. The Constitutional Court’s raising of the instances of not being able to register to run for election in some districts as a result of obstruction by some individuals in order to claim that the section of the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013) that set the date for the general election was unconstitutional was done with the intention to spoil the  election. In addition to having no basis in law, there is an additional problem of interpretation of this ruling. Have the ballots of those people who went to vote on 2 February 2014 been destroyed or not, and under the authority of which Constitutional or other legal provision?

4. Analyzed from a perspective of political struggle, it can be seen that the obstacle to the election came from the collaboration between the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and individuals who support the PDRC inside and outside the Parliament, and collaboration between those who are overt and covert in their actions to destroy parliamentary democracy. In addition, the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) did not act with an intention to work in line with their framework of authority and duty in order to successfully hold elections. Therefore, an effect of the ruling of the Constitutional Court is to prop up opposition to electoral democracy and make it come to fruition. This ruling disregards and neglects the rights of the people: those who hold the authority [in the country] and can express this authority in line with the rules and regulations that are in force.

5. This cooperation to oppose democracy will continue to create a political vacuum in order to open up the space for an extraconstitutional prime minister and government to come to power, and in order to push forward amendment of the Constitution in a direction that will weaken and devastate electoral democracy. The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy therefore condemns these attempts, those that have occurred and those that will occur in the near future, as antithetical to the basic rights and liberties of the people.

6. It is clear that from the 2006 coup up until the present, all of the independent agencies and the judiciary have become instruments of a powerful minority group acting in opposition to democracy. This group does so simply because they wish to swiftly destroy their political opponents. This has allowed the independent organizations and the judiciary to become distorted and seized to be used in the service of the destruction of democracy and the economic development of the country for the the sole purpose of causing the nation to become stagnant in a smelly, clogged whirlpool of violent conflict without end. Therefore, it is time for the people to come together to demand that the independent organizations and the judiciary are reformed and checks and balances are established. It is time to demand that these important mechanisms of the country come to be under the supervision of organizations representive of the voice of the majority. The people must take on these important tasks and make these changes come to fruition in the near future.

7. This method of spoiling elections has progressed for nearly a decade and may cause the nation to fall into a state of violence from which there is no exit. This state will remain until every authority and every side in Thai society comes to respect the equal voting rights of the people.

The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy would like to assert that the only solution for Thai society at present is to accept the principles of “equality of the people,” “sovereignty belongs to the entirety of Thai people,” “legitimacy of the majority,” and “respect in the rights and liberties of minority voices.” This is necessary to carry out reforms to eradicate the mechanisms that are antithetical to democracy, and before democracy, which is barely holding on at present, is completely destroyed.





On democracy in Thailand

19 12 2013

Readers will find something of interest in two recent posts by Andrew Spooner. The first is at Left Foot Forward, a UK political blog, about the fascist turn in Thailand and those opposing it. He concludes:

Thailand stands at crossroads – the potential for civil war is now obvious and fascism is rearing its ugly head. It’s time for the global community of democrats – whether on the left or the right – to stand shoulder to shoulder with those battling extremism in Thailand.

The second is at his own Asia Provocateur blog, where he has “asked four prominent persons from what I would call Thailand’s “pro-democracy alliance” the four same questions to gauge the range of thoughts and feelings as to the country’s present political situation.” The four are: “trade unionist and possible prospective party list MP candidate for the new Palang Prachathipatai Party (Democratic Force Party)” Jitra Kotchadej, political exile, Jakrapob Penkair; Secretary General to Yingluck Shinawatra, Suranand Vejjajiva, and Panuwat Panduprasert, a lecturer in the Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration at Chiang Mai University.

 





Violence and bias

28 11 2013

Readers will find Asia Provocateur Andrew Spooner’s recent post on violence and media bias of interest. His point is that these demonstrations, like those of PAD in earlier days and the various ginger groups that preceded Suthep Thaugsuban’s current lot, ooze right-wing and violent ideology. He uses the term fascist to describe the “movement.”

Their spokesperson says they are “civilized.” If they say it, the idea seems to be that it will eventually be believed. She should have just said that the protesters represent the rich, for the rich believe they are civilized compared with the nasty red shirt lot who are farmers and workers.

It seems that some of the media supporters of the current lot are having second thoughts:

It is undeniable the government has reached an impasse and lost legitimacy to run the country…. But the protesters are also destroying their own legitimacy more and more by violating the laws.

The first sentence is wrong, but the second betrays the concern that Suthep is losing momentum.





Updated: On Suthep, monarchy and violence

25 11 2013

In an earlier post we mentioned Suthep Thaugsuban’s call to make the country’s administration a genuine monarchy. Jakrapob Penkair, who says this was a call for an absolute monarchy, comments at Asia Provocateur. He notes that “… Suthep is practically changing his stage rhetoric from anti-government into anti-democratic regime-change.” Revealing its bias, The Nation is reporting only the Democrat Party’s “fixed” version of Suthep’s call for a change of government, claiming he said:

“A people’s government will be established to amend the country’s rules so that it is genuinely a democracy under constitutional monarchy,” he said…. Suthep encouraged people who back the protesters’ cause to seize state power “with their bare hands” by occupying government offices all across the country.

In amongst all of this, the palace managed to get out some propaganda pictures of the beach-side monarch. This goes hand-in-hand with bizarre denials of any behind-the-scenes activism in Thailand, claims that the foreign media “hate” or “loathe” the monarchy, and manufactured complaints about the foreign media’s “bias,” that lend themselves to xenophobia and violence. Such complaints mirror elite, palace and royalist barking about CNN and other media during red shirt protests.

Suthep’s demonstrators are being egged on with calls to violence couched in terms of saving the country and monarchy. As the Bangkok Post states, he “ordered protesters to storm into the offices of the Finance Ministry and the Budget Bureau in the afternoon. Later, another group of demonstrators seized offices inside the Foreign Affairs Ministry.”

The TJA executive meets on lese majeste

The TJA executive meets

There have been intimidatory challenges to the media and attacks on journalists. Remarkably, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association and the Thai Journalists’ Association could only manage a mild statement on such intimidation, while essentially justifying the actions of protesters. Such bias is expected from the ultra-royalist organizations, mirroring their previous bias.

The imagery has been violent for some days, and Suthep’s call for a genuine monarchy is mirrored in this photo of demonstrators from a weeks or so ago attacking the World Court and calling for the heads of “traitors,” while displaying royal and royalist paraphernalia:

Beheadings

Some of this violence and direct action has caused the Yingluck Shinawatra government to extend the Internal Security Act to cover Bangkok, Nonthaburi and other nearby areas.

Update: The Bangkok Post is reporting that:

… Suthep Thaugsuban has now called on demonstrators to seize state offices nationwide, including provincial halls and district offices, after protesters on Monday stormed the Finance Ministry, the Budget Bureau, the Foreign Ministry and the Pubic Relations Department (PRD).

As with the PAD demonstrations in 2008, this illegal confrontation is meant to create a crisis situation that will propel some action by judiciary, palace or military. Does Suthep have a plan? Who does he hope will intervene?





Spooner and Suranand

18 11 2013

Readers will no doubt find Andrew Spooner’s interview with Suranand Vejjajiva of some interest. Suranand is Secretary General to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. PPT will highlight a couple of points while urging readers to consult the whole interview.

The first interesting point for us is on the amnesty:

Was it a mistake to attempt a blanket amnesty?

The intention of the blanket amnesty bill is based on to forgive (but not forget). Many countries with violent political conflicts eventually end up with amnesties as a mechanism to set the country back on track. It is not a mistake but maybe a little too naive and “off” in terms of timing and communicating to the general public.

SuranandThis is surprising. Suranand usually has a good feel for the political pulse. This response might be spin, but if it is in any way real it suggests that the Puea Thai government is out of touch with its support base. If that were the case, it would be very dangerous for the party and government. It is important that Puea Thai not take the red shirts or the voters for granted. They are comrades and supporters who expect to be heard.

Critics claim the govt let down their supporters by not reforming laws like lese majeste or not doing enough to free the Red Shirt prisoners – what would you say to them?

The government has been trying to work to free the Red Shirt political prisoners as hard as possible. Some has been released but many remained, stuck in the judicial maze. The work will need to continue. As for lese majeste, the law remains a sensitive issue in Thailand.

Excellent question and a tired and rather pathetic answer. Wouldn’t it be remarkable to hear some one in (any) government actually explain the real reasons for sensitivity on the now completely bonkers lese majeste law.





Updated: Defamation

6 05 2013

As dopey, enraged and bitter yellow shirts try to equate defamation with lese majeste – a mistake they have long made in defending lese majeste – Asia Provocateur has a useful post on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s defamation action against Chai Ratchawatra for his nasty sexist rant.

Some time ago, PPT posted on another set of defamation cases. We said then:

PPT has criticized several court decisions as royalist politics. However, occasionally some good sense emanates from a court. The Criminal Court has made a useful decision when it “dismissed a libel case lodged by former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt leader and former MP Jatuporn Promphan…”. The court ruled that democratic politics meant that, “… a verbal attack cannot be regarded as defamation in accordance with the Penal Code…”. That seems to us to be a reasonable point.

Abhisit has fired off at least four defamation cases against Jatuporn and seems likely to appeal this decision. Of course, politicians on both sides of the current political sandwich are equally likely to shout defamation and head for the courts.

Thai politics is full of allegations, some of which are outrageous claims. It makes little real sense for politicians to use defamation laws against each claim yet they tend to see the courts as a political resort when they feel  injured. It is related to what, in the context of lese majeste, David Streckfuss calls the “defamation regime”: “a social and political formation that over time develops a kind of ‘defamation thinking’ and ‘impulse’ that focuses on the insult of the defamatory statement, often at the expense of the truth” (xv).

In the current circumstances, we think this account remains accurate. Frankly, we don’t recall a single yellow shirt doing anything other than cheering Abhisit’s multiple cases against Jatuporn, so we don’t see why they are howling now. However, Yingluck’s response to Chai’s tawdry bleating is a part of the now well-developed defamation regime that is reinforced by the royalist use of the courts for political purposes in recent years. Even so, we can’t help thinking that Chai’s political and chauvinist potty mouth deserves a strong political challenge rather than a legal response, even if royalist politics has joined the two.

Update:  For all their histrionics regarding defamation, the Democrat Party has rushed to accuse Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul, for describing the Democrat Party-led government as a “non-elected government”. While everyone recognizes that the Abhisit government only came to power through the intervention of the royalist judiciary, the behind-the-scenes machinations of the palace and very public puppetry by the military, the rather pathetic Abhisit and his party repeatedly plead that they were “elected by parliament.” Their defamation action again indicates the embeddedness of the defamation regime and voids any yellowish complaints about Yingluck’s defamation action.





Updated: Spooner, Asia Sentinel and HRW

29 04 2013

A couple of weeks ago we had a couple of posts (here and here) regarding Andrew Spooner’s short career at Asia Sentinel. One of the reasons he thinks he was shunted by Asia Sentinel was a story he did regarding Brad Adams at Human Rights Watch.Asia Provocateur moves

When Asia Sentinel showed Spooner the electronic door, they deleted this story. He has now re-posted it at his Asia Provocateur blog.

The post refers to a 2011 appearance by Adams at a meeting held in the UK Parliament. The post includes a video of Adams speaking at the parliament on arson in Bangkok in May 2010. Spooner questions Adams and HRW on their claims in 2011.

Update: A reader points out that former lese majeste political prisoner Joe Gordon has also posted a link to another Spooner post on HRW that caries a specific warning about HRW. Read Joe’s comment here and the Asia Provocateur article he refers to here.





Spooner’s ups and downs

11 04 2013

Less than a week ago PPT posted that:

Andrew Spooner is back with a new post at Asia Sentinel. His blogs and posts have always been interesting and have often aroused some fiery debates and controversy.

In that very short period he posted three stories with Asia Sentinel. Remarkably, they pulled them all.

Andrew tells his story of censorship back at his old blog Asia Provocateur. It certainly seems that his post questioning Human Rights Watch’s Brad Adams was a catalyst, but maybe his earlier writing also caused Asia Sentinel’s drastic action. And here we are referring to posts that were completely unconnected with Asia Sentinel!





Further updated: Somyos, amnesty and lese majeste

31 01 2013

The cruel 11-year sentence meted out to Somyos Prueksakasemsuk – 10 years for lese majeste and an extra years for insulting a autolatric, coup-making general – has caused plenty of reaction. Some of that has been the usual yellow-shirted and monarchist gloating that the monarchy has been “saved” once more by locking up a red shirt. Most of the reaction has been shock and outrage. In this post PPT looks at some of the reaction.Anti112

Some have asked if this case means that the monarchy is an impediment to democratisation in Thailand (a question asked 17-18 years ago in one academic article, well before there was any red shirt movement and when lese majeste was not used so eagerly).  Others have used words like “chilling” and “detrimental” when talking of freedom of expression.

When the EU condemned the verdict, the required ultra-royalist reaction was to protest, with a group of 50 or so royalist xenophobes calling themselves the Monarchy Protection Network or Volunteers ranting that Europeans with constitutional monarchies might better understand “the importance of the monarchy to Thailand.” They grumbled about the king being some kind of military leader and about him having “done a lot for the country” and demanded that anyone being nasty towards their idol be punished. They also drew comparisons with Europe and lese majeste laws there. Of course, their observations on Europe are uninformed, as even a quick look at Wikipedia shows that even the rare uses of the laws usually result in small fines, whereas Thailand’s use of these laws is more in line with feudal Europe.

The more positive reaction has been for the mobilization of protests demanding amnesty and for Article 112 to be abolished or reformed. Even some usually critical of anything considered to have a whiff of Thaksin Shinawatra like ” consumer protection rights advocates and FTA Watch activists are behind the letters to be sent Friday to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Parliament Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranand, and Supreme Court president Phairoj Vayuparb, as well as the chair of the National Human Rights Commission, to seek basic rights for Somyot who has been denied bail 12 times…”.

While Thai journalists continue to be worse than hopeless, the International Federation of Journalists has stated:

“The reactions to the ruling reflect the strength of feeling against the court’s decision which has the potential to damage severely the country’s standing,” said IFJ president Jim Boumelha. “The sentence handed down by the court speaks more to curtailing critical reporting in Thailand than to protecting the monarch.”

The Nation says that the amnesty calls “started with the proposal of the Nitirat group … who called for a charter amendment to make a new provision on amnesty.”

Nitirat proposed that only the demonstrators should be absolved. Their leaders would also benefit from the amnesty if they proved they led the protests because of political conflict, not because they were hired. Of course, those who were jailed under the lese majeste law would also receive the benefit.

But under Nitirat’s proposal, no government officials would be absolved irrespective of whether they were officials carrying out the crackdown orders or they were the officials who gave the orders….

Nitirat also linked the amnesty to the campaign for amendment of Article 112 on lese majeste, so the government could not comply with it.

Therein lies the rub for the timid Yingluck Shinawatra government that has refused to touch lese majeste, fearful of the wrath of the palace and its supporters. The more official red shirts want an amnesty via an executive decree, believing that this would not tread so heavily on any royalist or palace toes.

One way or another, the Yingluck government is now seemingly being cornered by its supporters.

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post’s Voranai Vanijaka decides that all of this tells us there are real red shirts and fake red shirts. PPT isn’t sure how he would know apart from the fact that he recently spoke with a taxi driver who claimed to be a red shirt. As with most royalists, his focus is Thaksin. He also makes a point about the government’s timidity on lese majeste:

should the government be cowed by the fear of possibly losing power into sacrificing promises of justice, democracy and human rights; or – at the very least – should it have the courage to take some sort of a public stand, starting with the lese majeste law, to simply say something.

Readers might scoff at Voranai, an opponent of red shirts when they have been on the streets and a booster for the Democrat Party, suggesting that his question is a kind of yellow shirt provocation, hoping that the government will do something on amnesty and lese majeste in order that the “tanks and protesters on the streets and judges on the Constitution Court bench” can get into action again. Yet the question for the government is apt: “But to take some sort of a stance, to say a word or two against the abuse and exploitation of the lese majeste law should not be beyond the courage and conviction of the Pheu Thai government.”

Of course, Voranai doesn’t make any comparisons. It cannot be denied that this government’s track record on lese majeste charges is far superior to that of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, when lese majeste was just one of its tools in filling jails with opponents and censoring opposition media. So at least Voranai can ask about “promises of justice, democracy and human rights” for this government; under Abhisit such questions simply didn’t arise.

Update 1: Asia Provocateur posts on questions raised in the UK parliament regarding the lese majeste sentencing of Somyos. We found the answers interesting, where it was twice stated that the “Government frequently raises human rights concerns with Thailand, both at ministerial and official level.” In addition, the British say:

Following the verdict, the European Union issued a statement expressing deep concern at the decision to sentence Somyot to 10 years imprisonment. The statement noted that the verdict seriously undermined the right to freedom of expression and press freedom. Our ambassador has also raised the issue with the Thai authorities.

Update 2: With respect to the European experience, The Nation has a useful report from an EU-sponsored workshop in Bangkok.

Former Dutch Ambassador to Thailand Tjaco Van Den Hout declared that “diversity, tolerance and broadmindedness are fundamental aspects of human rights in Europe. He stressed that high tolerance for criticism of public figures, including that of politicians and head of state and monarchy, is necessary for a democratic society.”

Lese majeste scholar David Streckfuss pointed out that the “minimum mandatory punishment under Thai lese majeste law, which is three years imprisonment term, is as high as the maximum sentences stipulated in Jordan, Morocco and Belgium.” He added that Thailand, “is unique in the world when it comes to the severity of the law and the frequency of its use.”

Peter Mork Thomsen, a judge from Denmark who handled lese majeste cases said “Danish lese majeste law had no mandatory minimum punishment…”.





Ludicrous upper class twits

17 01 2013

We couldn’t think of the right headline for this post, so just went for the first thought that we had at PPT after read a post as the Facebook page that is associated with tea-sipping elite scion and Democrat Party bigwig Korn Chatikavanij, headed Thailand edging closer to a police state.

We think Korn and his “staff” have spilled their marbles and aren’t even scrambling to pick them up; they have lost touch with anything called reality. Apparently, they are joined by 44 other members of the Democrat Party in making quite ludicrous claims. That’s a lot of loose marbles. Why do we say this? Take their first claim as an example:Marbles

One of the hallmarks of the Yingluck administration’s one and a half years in office has been to induce a culture of fear and intimidation to maintain apathy among the media and the opposition in the face of eroding liberty and the destruction of freedom of speech in Thailand…. Such shameless acts of intimidation by the Yingluck administration has gradually edged Thailand closer to a police state.

This lot then use examples of two alleged “bans” on the film “Shakespeare Must Die” and the television soap series “Nua Mek 2,” both of which are claimed to be attacks on the Shinawatra clan but also have scenes considered to offend lese majeste. Their other “evidence” of a “police state” is all about the Department of Special Investigation’s actions related to murder charges against Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban and various other charges or investigations of the Democrat Party.

As our readers know, PPT doesn’t condone censorship of any kind and we are not great fans of Tharit “The Eel” Pengdit and the DSI. That said, these claims are patently ridiculous, suggesting that studying at Eton and Oxford risks the seemingly contagious affliction of upper class twit, appropriately enough associated in one case with a stock broker.

They are ridiculous because the most repressive government for 30 years was that led by Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrat Party. It is they who closed almost all opposition media. It is Abhisit and the Democrat Party who locked up hundreds of political prisoners. It is Abhisit and the Democrat Party who used lese majeste and computer crimes laws to silence political opponents. In fact, one of the lese majeste charges from their police state was sentenced in the past few hours for implying something about the king! Others remain in jail on this most draconian of charges. It is they who were put in place by the military, supported by them and a demon seed junta constitution. So all their bleating about a “police state” is twaddle and nonsense.

Korn_tea

Korn

There are also three footnotes to the story worthy of mention. First, readers get a picture of the nature of dim-witted elitist babble when the post turns to “Abhisit Vejjajiva as with many other members of parliament affiliated with the Democrat Party, … [who] voluntarily made monthly donations to the Democrat Party by allowing the Secretariat of the House of Representatives to automatically deduct a certain amount from our salaries and issuing a check in that amount to the Democrat Party” being harassed.

The claim is a DSI probe is “a dangerous precedent for Thai society for it will discourage people to engage with and build political parties that truly reflect the needs and interest of the public. We attest that political parties that are not financed by the majority will only work for the interest of the minority.” Democrat Party MPs funding themselves does not sound like “the people” funding them, although we realize that these twits think they are the only people that matter.

An interesting second footnote is on the “Team Korn” dopey posting is that long-serving TIME magazine correspondent Robert Horn makes a comment on another comment (that appears to have been removed). Asia Provacateur has a take on this and some information and allegations regarding Horn’s links to the Democrat Party (and as เหตุใดนักข่าวนิตยสารไทม์ประจำกรุงเทพฯ นายโรเบิร์ต ฮอร์นจึงหาข้ออ้างให้กับการจำคุกนักโทษทางการเมืองไทย?). In the past, PPT has posted on Horn’s royalist and pro-Democrat Party stories (here, here, here, here, and here).

Finally, note “Team Korn’s” little debate in the comments section with Andrew MacGregor Marshall which is further evidence of the complete detachment from reality amongst the elitist upper crust.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers