Inquest rules red shirt killed by military

28 12 2013

In yet another case, a court has ruled that a red shirt was killed by military on 19 May 2010.

Prachatai reports that Thawil Khammul, a red-shirt, “was killed at 6 am on May 19 2010, at a taxi stop on Ratchadamri road, opposite Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, not far from Sala Daeng intersection.”

According to the court:

The cause of his death was a high-velocity bullet penetrating the victim’s skull and heavily damaging brain tissues. From photographic evidence and witness testimony, the court concluded that the trajectory of the bullet was from the military who were moving from Sala Daeng intersection toward Ratchaprasong intersection. The court could not identify the person responsible, who was acting under orders.

The final phrase points to troops acting under orders issues by then Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban as head of Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations established by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government. Suthep established live fire zones and permitted the deploying of snipers.

Updated: NHRC humiliated

12 08 2013

PPT has posted quite a lot that has been critical of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). In our last post on it, we noted that, under Yingluck Shinawatra, the NHRC has become irrelevant as it is recognised as a failed agency. We observed that the process of de-fanging the NHRC has been a post-2006 coup phenomenon. This is because the military junta and the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime that gave the NHRC extra powers, used it as a political tool and stacked it with political flunkies, including current head, Amara Pongsapich.

This political tool of the previous regime has taken more than three years to report on the events of April and May 2010. It is no surprise that the report is dead on arrival. “Biased” is the word most used in describing it. That appears to be an overly generous description. The response has been a humiliation for Amara and the NHRC.

At Khaosod: it is reported that the NHRC report “has been blasted by a number of activists and academics … which, the critics say, shifts most of the blames on the side of the protesters rather than the authorities.” The NHRC report was meant to draw lessons that could be guidelines for future governments. Khaosod summarizes the 90-page report:

that the security forces did commit several inappropriate actions – such as dropping teargas from the helicopters onto the crowd below and censoring a number of websites – but the bigger issue is that it was the Redshirts who “violated human rights” by engaging in unlawful protests and provoking the authorities.

The report concludes that the red shirts violated the law and provoked the violence. This made the Abhisit Vejjajiva government’s violent crackdown “entirely lawful,” as was the use of the  Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations and the emergency law. Further, the censorship  – closing down – of opposition media was “justified” by the need to eliminate  “inflammatory” speeches by red shirts.

Any casualties are claimed to have resulted from “clashes between the security forces and shadowy armed militants allegedly allied to the protesters…”. This includes the murders at Wat Pathum Wanaram! This clearly contradicts a recent court finding where the military was held responsible for the deaths.

Amara with CRES at an army base during the red shirt uprising in 2010

Amara with CRES at an army base during the red shirt uprising in 2010

Clearly, the NHRC report is a political document that simply ignores evidence (only 184 of the 1,036 witnesses called bothered to turn up for the NHRC) in seeking to protect the military and Abhisit government allies of the NHRC. This is no idle claim, as Amara spent time with CRES, the military and Abhisit and his lot at a military base during the events,

As red shirt Sombat Boonngamanong points out, looking through this travesty is like “reading a report written by CRES itself”, with former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuegsuban the author of many of the bizarre claims made. He calls it Abhisit’s report.

Other critics are cited in this report from Khaosod.

Amara defense of the report has been staggeringly bad. She:

… told Khaosod that she did state very clearly in her report that the Abhisit administration did violate human rights too by announcing the emergency laws which granted the government a sweeping power in 2010…. However, she insisted that the invocation of such powers were “acceptable” because the former government was observing the situation closely and only used the laws when it was clear that the protests were about to turn violent.

Yet she recently criticized Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra′s invocation of Internal Security Act to handle the anti-government protests. She has been unable to criticize previous governments she supported.

In a televised debate, Amara was even worse, and according to Khaosod:

appeared incoherent and even distracted throughout the interview, especially when pressed to explain about contentious issues such as the armed militants and deaths in Wat Pathumwanararm. Many of her replies were simply “I have not looked into that”, or “I am not sure about that”.

In another Khaosod report, Sunai Phasuk of Human Rights Watch, no enemy of the Abhisit government, accused the NHRC of “bias against the Redshirts and downplaying the heavy-handed tactics of the authorities in its report on 2010 political unrests.”

Of course, the incorrigible Democrat Party leadership wants to translate the NHRC report and use it with an international audience to “prove” its position. We assume Abhisit and Suthep will use it to defend themselves on murder charges associated with the events of 2010.

Update: PPT was surprised to see disgraced NHRC chief Amara in the media again today. She has criticized and warned police “to be cautious about its reported plan to examine the chat-application conversation histories of some suspects.” PPT would generally agree and we have said so, in stronger terms than Amara’s. However, her position is damned by the fact of her hopeless bias. It is all very well to criticize censorship and excessive legal snooping, but she seems to apply her “human rights” measure in an exceptionally partisan manner. It seems that cyber-snooping is a problem, but not censorship and murderous repression when this is conducted by her buddies in the (anti-)Democrat Party. To be a leader on human rights, one needs to understand rights, law and impartiality, none of which seem to be in Amara’s back of tricks.

Abhisit and Suthep deny

27 06 2013

A report at Khaosod tells its readers that former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is “not worried” by murder charges, while his former deputy and security chief Suthep Thaugsuban hammed it up and took political potshots at Thaksin Shinawatra while acknowledging the murder case against him.

Abhisit and Suthep were required to front at the offices of the Attorney-General “to acknowledge the criminal charges” that have been brought against them for their roles in the violent crushing of red shirt protests in 2010.Abhisit

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has charged Abhisit and Suthep with “conspiring to cause other individuals to commit murders.” The other individuals are presumably the Army, which has so far gotten away with murdering citizens many, many times.

Abhisit and Suthep “oversaw the crackdown of the Redshirts protesters who occupied parts of Bangkok to call for fresh election. CRES [Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations] authorized use of live ammunition in many of these operations, which concluded on 19 May 2010.” The DSI charge that the pair should be held responsible for at least two deaths “as the soldiers were operating under orders of CRES.”

Suthep “claimed that DSI has no legitimacy to pursue their charges, and added that he already filed challenge legal against the DSI.” He also “complained that the charges are unfair, voicing his fear that any death or injury in the April-May 2010 violence would be attributed to the doing of him and Mr. Abhisit.”Suthep

Ignoring the lack of relativity and getting legal procedures out of order, the comedic Suthep declared: “We won′t flee the country and instigate any chaotic protest to help us…”. Tell that to the Democrat Party’s yellow-shirted and now white-masked allies. As usual, Suthep babbled about his extraordinary laws at the time “to save the people from ‘terrorism’ and arson attacks on the capital city…”.

In a related report at The Nation, it is said that “[p]ublic prosecutors have set August 26 to announce a decision on whether … Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep … will be indicted for murder over the death of protesters during the 2010 riots.” The Nation has a penchant for the term “riot” when describing the protests.

The DSI has apparently “handed over nine boxes with 11,242 documents as evidence and files to prosecutors.”

Abhisit and Suthep assert that the “DSI did not have authority to conduct the probe because the suspects were state officials.” They want the National Anti-Corruption Commission to take over the case, presumably betting on impunity if this were to happen.

Remembering 2010

19 05 2013

As another anniversary of the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime’s army-led crackdown on red shirts is upon us, it is worth recalling that it is only a year or so ago that the Department of Special Investigation reported its investigations of the deaths.

DSI stated back then that state authorities “may be responsible for the deaths of at least 25 people…”.

Since then, while the DSI under the Yingluck Shinawatra has made some moves towards having Abhisit and Suthep Thaugsuban held responsible, it seems the army brass is again sitting in the world of unconscionable impunity (more on this below).

A series of recent reports reflect on the tragic events of 2010 and on the events since.

At the Red Shirts blog, it is reported that on 12 May 2013, a hearing finally:

took place at the Bangkok Criminal Court on the investigation and autopsy reports concerning 6 corpses found inside the Pathumwan Temple grounds. These victims were shot dead during the government suppression of the UDD protest on May 19, 2010.

Police investigators found bullet holes and:

reported that many more bullet holes could be found all over the temple grounds. Bullet holes were found on a metal sign in front of the temple, on the wall of the temple, on the advertisement sign under the BTS sky train, on the sky walk connecting the sky train stations, on the overpass and many more on the concrete platforms of the sky train.

Soldiers denied investigators access to the sky train tracks and the sky walk area.

Police ballistic analysis showed “23 bullet holes found on the temple grounds and Rama 1 Road …indicated that these shots had been fired from a higher angle and definitely not from a horizontal line of fire.” There was no evidence reported of shots from inside the temple.

At the Bangkok Post it is reported that the “parents of a boy who was killed as security forces moved in to clear the Ratchaprasong area … claim …  not enough is being done to find the people responsible for their son’s death.”

Pansak Srithep, was the father of 17-year-old Samapan, his only son. Samapan was killed on Ratchaprarop Road, where several people were shot dead. Pansak said “it has been draining for him and other families of those killed during the unrest to struggle to find witnesses willing to appear in court.”

Pansak “wants the government … to do more to help, and said investigators could do more to help with the court cases.” He claimed the Yingluck government “lacked the will to help…”.

The Bangkok Post states that there are currently “37 cases are at the initial inquest stage,” while “[a]nother 15 cases, including the death of Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto and six deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram, are at a stage where authorities are still determining if the security forces were responsible.” Another four cases “are awaiting a decision from prosecutors as to whether they will proceed,” and five others, “including that of Maj Gen Khattiya Sawatdiphol, known as Seh Daeng,” are at initial stages of police investigation.

The family of Kamolkate Akkahad, a medic shot at Wat Pathum Wanaram, are “also dismayed by the slow progress…”. They “will not join the main [official red shirt] stage during the event on Sunday.”army-snipers

At Prachatai it is reported that on 29 April, “the Criminal Court began an inquest into the deaths of Mana Saenprasoetsi and Phonsawan Nakhachai who were shot at Bon Kai on Rama IV Rd on 15 May 2010…”. They were two of 16 killed at this location, where video evidence shows army operations, including snipers.

Mana “was fatally shot in the back of the head near the mouth of Soi Ngam Duplee … while he was trying to help people who had been shot there.” Phonsawan, who was assisted by Mana later succumbed to his stomach gunshot wound.

Mana’s  mother Naree stated he was shot “while holding a red-cross flag in his hand”and helping two others who had been shot.

Soon after his death, the authorities (mis)used photos of Mana to justify actions that took place some distance from where he was shot.

Another story at the Bangkok Post directs attention to red shirt dissent on the Puea Thai government’s amnesty push:

Some red shirts see the proposal championed by Deputy Premier Chalerm Yubamrung as a betrayal because it would cover senior Democrat Party figures who were in government when the military crackdown on the Bangkok rally took place three years ago Sunday.

Of course, the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra lot oppose amnesty as a move to bring the man home. Thaksin is due to address supporters via videolink this weekend.

As PPT has stated several times, a blanket amnesty “would simply perpetuate the culture of impunity in Thailand, where senior figures rarely take responsibility for anything…”. The report adds:

Prominent scholars have been criticising the Pheu Thai flip-flop in social media forums. They include Nitirat Group core member Piyabutr Saengkanokkul; Thammasat University scholars Kasian Tejapira and Somsak Jeamteerasakul. Hard-core red-shirt activists Nithiwat Wannasiri, Jittra Kotchadet and Suda Rungkuphan also oppose the Chalerm plan.

 They say the party is betraying the red-shirt rank and file, as if a hundred deaths and a thousand injuries were simply the price to pay for the party’s compromise with the old establishment for the sake of its own survival.

PPT reiterates that those responsible for the murder of civilians must be brought to justice as an important step to rooting out the culture of impunity that state officials and the military has when murdering civilians.

Updated: The tug-of-war continues

2 05 2013

A spate of news reports attest to the continuing political struggle in Thailand as disgruntled royalists seek to undermine the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. These battles focus on Thaksin Shinawatra, the events of 2010 and the military junta’s 2007 constitution. In this post, in no particular order of significance, we summarize some of these struggles and reports.

A critical royalist ally is the judiciary, which continues to punish red shirts and to “teach lessons” in power to those who oppose royalist political domination. This is made especially clear in a report at the Bangkok Post that has the Appeals Court upholding a “Criminal Court’s ruling, denying Pheu Thai Party MP Korkaew Pikulthong bail and sending him back to Laksi temporary prison.” Korkaew is one of the red shirt leaders who was bailed on terrorism charges from 2010 – lower level red shirts remain in jail on related charges or have already been convicted. His bail was withdrawn by the Criminal Court for allegedly “threatening the judges of the Constitution Court.” His appeal was denied because “Korkaew showed no regret…. There was no assurance that he would not break the conditions again if he was granted bail…”. This is punishment for challenging the judiciary and is meant to send a message of the inviolability of that royalist bastion.

On the other side, flip-flopper-in-chief at the Department of Special Investigation Tharit Pengdit has announced that former premier and current Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban will be summoned to acknowledge additional charges of authorizing killings during the 2010 red shirt rallies. These charges relate to events including the “the murder of Kunakorn Srisuvan and the attempted murder of Samorn Maithong, a van driver who was seriously injured in the same incident in which taxi driver Pan Kamkong was shot dead.” Tharit reaffirmed that “military officers ordered to crack down on red shirt protesters in 2010 could not be held responsible for the deaths of civilians killed as a result.” PPT wonders when other members of the coterie of officials, military brass, Democrat Party politicians and Tharit himself, as part of the infamous Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) that was responsible for implementing the various actions against red shirt protesters. That aside, building pressure on Abhisit and his lot is causing increased hatred of Thaksin Shinawatra and his allies on the royalist side as those who have murdered citizens in political acts in the past have generally done so with impunity.

A focus of the political rivalry is constitutional change. The royalists and others who supported the military junta’s drafting of the 2007 constitution repeatedly claimed that if the opposition to the military and its coup didn’t like the basic law, they could easily change it if their party won an election. Of course, the military-royalist coalition assumed that they could engineer a Democrat Party election victory and protect the constitution. But the Democrat Party has lost every election to Thaksin-backed parties and so the promises were quickly buried and there has been rabid opposition to any constitutional change.

One of the demon seed elements of the constitution is appointed, unelected senators. Interestingly, as part of the push for constitutional change, Puea Thai MP Sunai Jullapongsathorn has proposed that “the terms of all appointed senators be ended once the charter revisions take effect. Elected senators would be allowed to carry out their duties till their terms have ended.” At present, it seems that the unelected lot are in place for several more years while the terms of elected senators end next March. This proposal is an attack on one of the significant elements of the constitution that maintains royalist-military political domination even when elected governments are in place. Hence, the anti-democrats support the military junta’s spawn. For example, Democrat Party MP Thana Cheeravinit babbled that “appointed senators had taken up their posts legally in accordance with the Constitution. He said appointed senators have contributed to the country and should not be deprived of their constitutional rights.” Their contribution to the “country” is actually to support the anti-democratic minority and the royalist elite.

The current struggle’s epicenter is the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly demonstrated political bias and remarkable corruption. A relatively small group of red shirts has been protesting at the Court. Now some of them are calling “on fellow red shirts nationwide to join a rally in front of the court next week in order to step up pressure against the nine members of the bench,” and hope for tens of thousands to rally in support. The royalist judges continue with their consideration of petitions by fellow royalists that seek to declare more than 300 MPs and senators to be, in effect, treasonous in their intent to make constitutional changes. The Bangkok Post reports that the Court’s legally bizarre bid to force these representatives to “explain their stance” has been extended by 15 days. The extension is because every single representative has so far refused to comply with this kangaroo court’s preposterous interference with the legislature. Of course, the biased judges “decided to postpone consideration of a petition by Pheu Thai MPs seeking its ruling on the parliamentary status of opposition leader Abhisit…” related to his loss of military rank and the related question of his status as an MP.

Finally, and perhaps the most sordid of the battles, is the anti-democrat’s response to Yingluck’s speech in Mongolia. That speech, which was a spirited defense of electoral democracy and a statement of the events of recent years has caused considerable royalist and anti-democratic hatred to be expressed. The yellow social media and media are alive with claims that a speech on democracy and its challenges in Thailand amounted to spin and deceit or even “treason,” and there have been related and very nasty and deeply sexist remarks that she is a whore for finally standing up and speaking some truths about the anti-democrats. One of those truths is that the royalists and their political allies are democracy haters.

Update: And, of course, we should have mentioned the battle over Thaksin and amnesty, which has also re-heated. The Bangkok Post reports that the deposed prime minister backs Chalerm Yubamrung’s proposed amnesty bill and says: “I want to come home. Tell the Democrat Party not to worry. If I come back, I don’t want anything…”. That last claim might be hard to believe, but whenever Thaksin talks of return, the coup supporters quickly reassemble for another bout of anti-Thaksinism. There will again be plenty of heat around Thaksin.

Targeting Tharit

4 01 2013


The story at The Nation on Phayao Akkahad, mother of the murdered medic Kamolkade Akkahad going after Department of Special Investigation chief, Tharit Pengdit is telling for its clarity and precision.

Kamolkade was probably killed by Army shooters, who shot her five times, as she tended to wounded at Wat Pathum Wanaram as the Abhisit Vejjajiva government cleared red shirt protesters in May 2010. Phayao states that Tharit, a member of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), which was responsible for ordering the crackdown, “cannot be absolved from his responsibility for the people killed in … 2010…”. As the report has it, “Payao explained that if other CRES members were found guilty, there is no reason why Tarit should not be held responsible as well.”

Phayao wants the Yingluck Shinawatra government to remove Tharit and “complained that former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban were not detained like other red shirts when the DSI accused them of having the intention to murder in relation to the 2010 crackdown.”

Finally, she wants “all Army officers involved in ordering and carrying out the alleged shooting of protesters in 2010 should also be prosecuted.” She is correct when she observes that: “If we don’t prosecute soldiers now, then they will end up engaging in such ‘operations’ again and again…”.

Another inquest blames army

21 12 2012

Reports at The Nation and Bangkok Post indicate that a court has blamed the Army for a fourth death in May 2010. In this case, the victim was “a 14-year-old boy, who did not belong to either red or yellow-shirt camp, was indeed killed by troops on May 15, 2010.” He was Khunakorn Srisuwan.

This child “had attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and was staying at an orphanage of the International Islamic Relief Organisation in Suan Luang district…”. He was “shot in the back on Mor Leng Road in front of the OA movie theatre about 20 metres off Ratchaprarop Road early on May 15, 2010.” Previously he had been “playing near a military bunker at the Ratchaprarop station of the Airport Rail Link near the theatre…”.

The court heard that “soldiers from the 31st Artillery Battalion and the 3rd Infantry Battalion had restricted access to the area and the vicinity around Ratchaprarop Road. Their command unit was at the Airport Rail Link station.”

The inquest discovered that a “fragment of a rifle bullet was found in his wound. Soldiers who were deployed in the area used M16 assault rifles, the court said, ruling that the stray bullet came from a soldier’s rifle.”

The killing occured “under a state of emergency declared by then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s government amid the anti-government red-shirt protests” and in “an operation under the order of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation.”


Updated: Pressuring the military

26 11 2012

It is reported at Prachatai and at The Nation that the Criminal Court has ruled that a member of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship was killed in gunfire by troops acting on orders of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government’s Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation.

Taxi driver Channarong Polsrila was killed by security officers during the early part of the Army’s crackdown on red shirts on 15 May 2010, when he and several others came under sustained and targeted fire from snipers and other troops. However, the Court was unable to identify the shooter or his unit.

The red-shirt taxi driver was shot and killed in front of a gas station on Ratchaprarop Rd on the afternoon of 15 May 2010. He was hit by a “.223 calibre bullet shot from a machine gun…”. PPT would like to know more about this as we believe (and we aren’t experts) that the .223 is a commercial production and that the Army uses “NATO” 5.56mm ammunition. We are not questioning the finding and would like to know more about Army ammunition purchases.

This is the second court ruling in a series of inquests into the deaths of red shirts believed to have been killed by authorities during the 2010 crackdown.  Up to 19 cases have been sent to the courts.

Update: A reader points out that we should have added that the pressure is also on Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban. The reader points to a Bangkok Post article that states that the UDD’s Weng Tojirakarn “said that since Channarong was shot to death by soldiers on duty under a CRES order, then-premier Abhisit … and Suthep …, who at the time was deputy prime minister and the CRES director, must take responsibility for the taxi driver’s death.”

Kavi on Abhisit by Abhisit

30 10 2012


Kavi Chongkittavorn at The Nation has never been shy about promoting Abhisit Vejjajiva as his most loved politician. In a post not that long ago, we pointed out Kavi’s unreserved admiration for Abhisit and the distaste he felt for elected politicians who seemed to be more popular with voters than the man he admires most. Hence it is no surprise that Kavi should produce a wholly uncritical and  syrupy appreciation of Abhisit’s recently published book that claims to set the story straight and tell the truth of the events of April and May 2010.

While the book is titled “Truth has no color,” and Kavi claims it is a “tell-it-all” account, Kavi doesn’t actually tell his readers if there is any truth in Abhisit’s account or whether it is simply a self-serving gloss. PPT hasn’t yet seen the book although the cover apparently claims that the book rebuts the claims of all the “liars.”

We can only assess Kavi’s account of a 174 page “memoir” that has, astoundingly, 44 chapters. This alone suggests that, at less than 4 pages a chapter, the book is not providing any deep analysis. So much for Abhisit the “academic.” A reader tells us it is “so badly written, so poorly substantiated … it’s actually impossible to satirise as it sets a new benchmark for unconscious self-parody.” At least Kavi explains that the book contains “simple thoughts.” Nowhere is Kavi even close to being critical, being accepting of every claim Abhisit makes, including the notion that the brave leader worked “to ensure that Thailand would not become a failed state.” The regime Abhisit created, built on royalist ideology, brute force, repression, and censorship and rejecting opponents as ignorant, duped and paid buffaloes says more about a failed ideology and ruling class than a failed state.

Referring to Abhisit as a “young leader,” Kavi claims that Abhisit struggled with “fears of losing innocent lives…”. He says that Abhisit includes “his thoughts and surroundings along with his close aides and soldiers who guarded him” at the headquarters of the 11th Army Regiment which became the offices of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situations during the events of April and May 2010, and where Abhisit and his team sort the military’s protection.

In fact, Abhisit’s military protection included his being hoisted to power in a deal concocted by the military and he is apparently unhappy that he was criticized for not having won government via the ballot box. This causes him to claim his “premiership was legitimate and went through the parliamentarian approval as in other countries.” Nothing new there, as this was his claim from the beginning. That it also hides the military’s role in his rise haunts Abhisit.

Abhisit expresses his personal disdain for Thaksin Shinawatra and believes that his “only serious mistake” was in rejecting Thaksin. Like a spoiled child, Abhisit blames his failures and his unpopularity on the evil mastermind of every single thing, Thaksin. His claim that his infamous “televised negotiation [sic.] between … Abhisit’s government and opponents … was a publicity stunt for the opponents even though he thought the government could reach agreement with them.”

Our memory of the event is that it was Abhisit who decided to make the televised meeting with red shirt leaders a stunt. He had repeatedly refused any negotiation and abruptly changed his mind at the last minute. In the talks, he repeatedly denied the red shirt claim for a new elections, saying that “elections will solve nothing.” While Abhisit was intransigent, in the book he blames Thaksin.

The good old days

Kavi makes claims regarding the book that has Abhisit portraying himself as following “rule of law” or following international standards on military engagement with protesters and the like. This leads Kavi to claim that Abhisit displayed “strength and decency.” Unfortunately, Kavi provides no evidence from the book for this and fails to reflect critically on these claims by a man accused of ordering the military to establish live fire zones and to use snipers. That evidence suggests that the idea that Abhisit was “a concerned leader constantly fearing bloodshed and tried to prevent the loss of lives” is a self-serving nonsense.

There are other claims that are apparently from the realm of fairy tale. Abhisit says that “with all the propaganda that went on against the government, Abhisit and his team were not able to counter them efficiently and sufficiently.” How ludicrous is this when it is considered that the state controlled all media or had it on side and shut down virtually all of the red shirt media.

Abhisit is living in a fantasy world where he now believes his own propaganda. Kavi wants to live next door.

Suthep’s perjury

28 10 2012

PPT initially missed a report a couple of days ago on a court case regarding the “death of Channarong Polsrila, who was shot in front of a Shell petrol station on Rang Nam Road in Phaya Thai district on the night of May 15, 2010.”

This death, and others in that area saw deliberate targeting by the Army of anyone considered likely to be a red shirt. The Abhisit Vejjajiva government had imposed a state of emergency in Bangkok and live fire zones were declared around the red shirt encampment.

Suthep Thaugsuban (Bangkok Post photo)

The court heard testimony from then deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban who stated that as “director of … [the] Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation, he ordered officials to block people from entering red-shirt protest sites and instructed officials to take action in accordance with international standards.” The former is true. If the latter, then the Army disobeyed orders. In the circumstances of the time, this seems unlikely.

In any case, Suthep went on to testify that:

officials were told to use only shields, clubs, rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons. Only commanders were allowed to carry pistols, rifles and live ammunition to defend themselves and others _ but they were not allowed to kill anyone.

Clearly, based on all the evidence of reporters, available video reports and all of the investigative reports released to date, Suthep is treating the court with contempt. He seems to think that impunity will continue to prevail.

%d bloggers like this: