[FACT comments: This is one of the most important articles FACT has ever published: For only $30 million a year, the US can delete Internet censorship by any govt anywhere.
Of course we can question the fact that the Global Internet Freedom Consortium, of which FACT is a member, has a hidden agenda, namely Falun Dafa, and therefore an axe to grind with Chinese authorities.
And we can question the US agenda as an international police state.
But the truth remains that $30 million can end Internet censorship. (We may add, about effing time!)
This is precisely the amount allocated by the US Congress this year to fund anti-censorship tools. Why not create an anti-censorship superfund?
This presumes there is genuine US political will, backed by funding, to end 'net censorship.
How much does the US spend on war, police, prisons, Homeland Security—say, $30 million a minute, an hour, a day???
Frankly, we don’t care who funds it—delete ‘net censorship, in Thailand and everywhere else, NOW!]
Twitter this
The means exist to rupture Internet censorship in China and Iran — if the State Department will cooperate.
Washington Post: November 21, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004152.html
THE MOST interesting question President Obama fielded in China came over the Internet, via the U.S. Embassy, from a Chinese citizen who asked, “Do you know of the firewall? Should we be able to use Twitter freely?” In response, Mr. Obama, speaking at a town hall in Shanghai, did not directly address China’s massive Internet censorship operation — “the firewall” — and he confessed that he does not use Twitter. But he said, “I’m a big supporter of not restricting Internet use, Internet access, other information technologies like Twitter.”
No doubt that’s correct. And, just as likely, Mr. Obama is not aware that his State Department not only is doing next to nothing to support Internet freedom in countries such as China, but that it also has been slow-walking congressional initiatives to do so.
For two years Congress has appropriated funds to support groups that are developing ways to circumvent the Chinese firewall and those erected in Iran, Burma, Cuba and other repressive countries. The most prominent of the groups, the Global Internet Freedom Consortium, says it has the capacity to host 1.5 million users daily. Its technology works: Shiyu Zhou, the deputy director of the consortium, testified to the U.S. Helsinki Commission last month that at the height of opposition protests on June 20, more than 1 million Iranians used the system. He said that with $30 million of additional funding, capacity could be increased to 50 million users a day, making it “prohibitively expensive for any repressive government to counter our efforts.”
A bipartisan coalition that includes Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) has been trying to channel the necessary funding. A total of $20 million has been included in the past two State Department budgets, and $30 million more is pending in the Senate’s version of the 2010 budget. But State hasn’t passed the money on to the firewall-busters. Instead it gave the lion’s share of its 2008 appropriation to a group that specializes in conducting media studies and training journalists, and it has failed to distribute the 2009 funds, even though the fiscal year ended nearly three weeks ago. The department says it is increasing the staff dedicated to working on Internet freedom issues and that it is funding some “implementing partners” that it won’t identify.
Still, no money is going to the one organization with a proven record of overcoming firewalls. The group’s advocates suspect that that’s because the Global Internet Freedom Consortium is identified with China’s banned Falun Gong movement — and State is fearful of Beijing’s reaction to any U.S. support for it. The Obama administration has already done plenty to appease the Chinese regime. The least it can do is act on the president’s own words about the value of free information — and help give Chinese their chance to Twitter.
Catch me if you can, but you don’t want to, do you?
Voranai Vanijaka
Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/27906/catch-me-if-you-can-but-you-don-t-want-to-do-you
Does anyone actually think that the Thai authorities want Thaksin Shinawatra arrested? If they wanted Thaksin arrested, wouldn’t he already have been arrested?
Could it be that the reason he hasn’t been arrested is simply because they don’t want him in custody?
Why launch a coup when he was in New York? Did that mean he was not supposed to be arrested in the first place? Why did he pack more suitcases than Imelda Marcos on his trip to the UN meeting in New York in September 2006? Was it because he knew there was to be a coup? That it has been arranged and he was informed by the coup makers ahead of time? Why was he allowed to attend the Beijing Olympics when the court had already convicted him and he was in Thailand, in the grasp of the Thai authorities?
The term political decorum is key to understanding Thai politics. Certain things are just a matter of time honoured tradition. When a coup is launched against you, good political decorum dictates that it’s time for you to go away quietly. Retire to your billion baht home, your mansion in the Swiss Alps and live out the rest of your days in luxury. After all, you’ve worked tirelessly for years in stealing from the country. Don’t make a fuss. Just fade away. It’s good political decorum.
You’ve been in charge because you’re allowed to be in charge. There’s a prior arrangement. You’re removed because you’ve broken a prior arrangement. You’ve been naughty. So you have to go. Someone else has to replace you to continue stealing from the country.
A military coup in Thailand is simply a tool of up-keeping political decorum. The only time when a coup turns bloody, is when there’s a third party involved _ someone else who could not abide by the act.
For example, in the May 1992 coup by army commander Suchinda Krapayoon, the Chartchai Choonhavan government was set to fade away quietly. Why? It’s simply because the late former Prime Minster Chartchai had good political manners. Violence broke out in the streets and gave rise to Bloody May only because someone else wasn’t willing to play ball _ Chamlong Srimuang.
But Thaksin Shinawatra? He’s a bad boy. He has no manners. Not only did he break a prior arrangement while he was prime minister, after the coup, he just won’t go away quietly.
Dear readers, Thaksin had already returned to Thailand during the administration of his nominee Samak Sundaravej. The Constitutional Court found Thaksin guilty of wrong-doing. He asked if he could go to the Beijing Olympics and said he would return to face his punishment. They said, yeah, okay, see you soon.
Now, isn’t that ridiculous? Could it very well be that the verdict was just for show? That they really didn’t want him arrested? That they, once again, gave him a chance to fade away quietly?
One may say that the Samak Government saw to it that he was able to leave the country. I don’t think so. We well know the Samak Government was as potent as a 70-year-old who couldn’t find his Viagra. They couldn’t order the police to give a traffic ticket, but army generals could _ and that’s the point.
So why did the authorities keep lett-ing him go?
Readers know well that I am no fan of this former prime minister and that I think he is a dangerous megalomaniac, but one thing we have to give to him. Thaksin Shinawatra is a fighter. One doesn’t become this rich and powerful if one isn’t a fighter. One couldn’t have turned the landscape of Thai politics upside down and swept an entire election if one isn’t a fighter. Thaksin Shinawatra is a fighter. Certain people did not count on that.
Because Thaksin is a fighter with a lot of cash in his hands, naturally there are those willing to fight with him. Mob for hire has been a time-honoured occupation in human civilisation since the days of the Romans. Which brings us back to why the authorities do not want Thaksin arrested.
Dear readers, imagine Thaksin in handcuffs on Thai soil. Just imagine it. What would happen? The red shirts would make the Songkran incident look like a picnic in the park. There would be blood in the streets. Thailand, politically and economically, cannot afford that. The Thai authorities don’t want to arrest him. The Thai authorities don’t have the stomach for it.
Likewise Thaksin. Although he’s a fighter, he’s not a warrior. A fighter fights for rewards. A warrior fights for beliefs. If he were a warrior, he would gladly extend his wrists to the handcuffs. Then let’s have it out in the streets and may the man with the most cash win. Or else, the tanks can come charging in.
So if the fear is civil war in the streets, the game is not to defeat Thaksin Shinawatra.
The game is to defeat the red-shirt movement because without them, Thaksin will have no support base.
The best way to defeat the red shirts is, of course, by the Democrats winning the next general election. Because democracy is the only legitimate argument the red shirts have in support of Thaksin and against the Abhisit Vejjajiva government. If the Abhisit government wins, then the democracy argument will be moot.
Which is why Thaksin and the Puea Thai Party are doing their best to agitate and undermine the Abhisit government, pressuring him to dissolve the parliament and call for an election. Because they believe that the earlier the election, the better chance of a Puea Thai victory. It’s a matter of baht and satang.
Which is why the Abhisit government is doing its best to delay the general election. They need to take time and gather as much popular support as possible by handing out populace incentives. It’s also a matter of baht and satang.
When the time comes, if the Democrats do not win, then we all may have to answer to the people who are really in charge of this country: The military.
[FACT comments: Doh! That pesky democracy sure gets in the way!]
‘Times’ under more pressure
- Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/27936/times-under-more-pressure
The government will put more pressure on The Times of London to hand over the recording of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s controversial interview after the news outlet rejected the first request.
The government’s request for the audio recording with Thaksin – the transcript of which appeared on The Times’ website on Nov 9 – had been rejected with the newspaper citing press freedom, PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey said on Sunday.
However, he said, the office would send a letter to seek an explanation as to why The Times had refused to offer the recording of Thaksin’s interview.
He said if The Times online is sincere and did not conspire with Thaksin to verbally attack and offend the supreme institution of Thailand, it should send the recording for checking, Mr Sathit said.
Following the publication of the Thaksin interview, the government denounced the ousted premier for offending the monarchy.
Thaksin has maintained that he was loyal to the monarchy and accused The Times of distorting his comments.
[FACT comments: Duh! And Thai govt expected another result??? That’s what’s called a, umm, free press…]
Times refuses to hand over Thaksin tape
- Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/160747/times-refuses-to-hand-over-thaksin-tape
The London newspaper that printed an interview with Thaksin Shinawatra focussing on the monarchy has “unofficially” refused to turn over the original tape to the Thai government, PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey said on Sunday.
The government “requested” a copy of the original tape of the interview between The Times newspaper and the fugitive ex-premier, the miinster said.
The interview took place earlier this month, and according to Mr Satit it is “thought to contain material considered offensive to the monarchy.”
Mr Sathit told repoerters the daily did not provide a reason why it would not provide the taped interview, but merely said it had the right not to comply with the request.
Mr Sathit said he had again ordered officials to send a request again and ask the daily to “reply officially”. He claimed the article hurt the feelings of the Thai people.
The interview was conducted in Dubai where Thaksin is staying in self-imposed exile. The newspaper said the interviewer was Richard Lloyd Parry, a British foreign correspondent who is Tokyo-based Asia editor of The Times.
The ex-premier has claimed the online edition of The Times “distorted” his remarks.
Thaksin was sentenced in absentia in October last year by a Bangkok court to two years’ imprisonment for abuse of power by helping his then-wife acquire a parcel of prime Bangkok commercial property at a price far below its market value.
Sangha split opens door for women
Sanitsuda Ekachai
Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009
http://www.bangkokpost.com/blogs/index.php/2009/11/20/sangha-split-opens-door-for-women?blog=64
When the monastic elders in Thailand were busy with the Wat Sothorn monks’ protest two week ago over who would get to be the abbot of their rich temple, their Western counterparts were simultaneously facing a serious split over the ordination of bhikkhuni (female monks).
Here in Thailand, we just shook our heads wearily at the sight of angry monks trying to retain their grip on temple wealth.
Temple corruption, you see, is old news. So is the failure of the council of elders to ensure transparency regarding temple finances.
But no matter how unhappy we are, we tell ourselves we should follow the saying, Chua chang chee, dee chang song which advises us to stay away from problems involving monks and nuns.
While the local reaction is resignation, that of the Western laity’s bhikkhuni ordination is a quest for change.
One is about hopelessness. The other is about hope.
Isn’t it telling?
At issue in the Western clergy is the expulsion of Ajahn Brahmavamso from the Wat Pah Pong Forest Sangha under the lineage of Luang Por Chah, for engineering the full ordination of women at his temple in Australia, in violation of the Thai elders’ anti-bhikkhuni mandate.
Disillusionment runs high because the Western laity hold the Wat Pah Pong Forest Sangha in high esteem and they think their Ajahns (teachers) could do better than just meekly submit to the patriarchal, feudal Thai clergy whose views on women are shaped by sexist Thai cultural norms.
They might understand that their Ajahns, having had to practice in a totally foreign culture, see submission as a way to let go of old conditionings and the sense of self.
They might realise that, along the way, their Ajahns need to incorporate some Thai cultural values which focus on relationships and group harmony.
But they expect their teachers to choose compassion for women monastics and the principle of gender equality over traditional submission to authority.
Their hurt deepened when Amaravati and Cittaviveka forest monasteries in Great Britain imposed a draconian contract (http://bit.ly/LiMdt) on their Siladhara nuns, forcing them to formally accept the inferior status and the bitter reality that they could never become bhikkhunis there.
Thanks to the internet, an international community of Buddhist laity promptly emerged to protest against the Western Forest Sangha’s decision against bhikkhuni ordination and the draconian contract for the Siladhara nuns.
Apart from encouraging more openness to full female ordination, their e-petition at http://bit.ly/2wndUC subtly reminds the Western clergy that they are now operating in societies with strong awareness of democracy, transparency and gender equality.
So they cannot simply dismiss the voices of the laity if they want the monastic Thai forest tradition to thrive in the West.
Given the ever louder calls, we are witnessing the making of the Western forest tradition, one that is more open, more democratic and more respectful of gender equity.
Exciting, isn’t it?
The Western Sangha should not feel annoyed. They should be glad.
The petition calling for dialogue shows the laity still have hope in their Ajahns. It shows they still care.
Sadly, that cannot be said about the situation in Thailand.
Despite resistance from traditionalists, there is no stopping bhikkhuni ordination now.
In Thailand, women bypass the Thai clergy to be ordained in Sri Lanka. Overseas, women now have a place to be ordained in the Thai forest tradition if they so wish.
Meanwhile, the Siladhara nuns are reportedly leaving Amaravati to set up their own sanctuaries.
We must admit, with gratefulness, that the Western Sangha have prepared them well. The nuns are now ready to fly, to create a more open and caring atmosphere for women to practice in the West without being held back by Thai traditions, the way their Ajahns must endure with.
The challenge ahead is huge. But with Dharma and spiritual perseverance, they will become a source of inspiration and confidence for many more women who want to follow the same path.
Again, we must thank the recent storm in the Western clergy for making it happen.
Reactions to Thaksin interview-Times
24-11-09
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: Honestly, we do expect to see Thaksin back in Thailand. Likely with his billions intact and not in a gaol cell. If a military coup can rescind a working Constitution, we just don’t have any respect for rule of law. And maybe we just don’t deserve one. Hmm, and what about the lèse majesté charge and extradition from the PM’s favorite countries???]
So Richard, Why can’t British public schoolboys rule Thailand?
The Times: November 10, 2009
I have been watching with interest the web reaction to ‘The Times’ interview with Thaksin on some of the local forums, and am amazed that few people actually get it……. and that, perhaps, includes the author.
The interview by Richard Lloyd Parry was indeed a scoop. It was the first time Thaksin laid his cards on the table to such an extent to the foreign press, and even though nobody else from the foreign press seemed to want to chase this particular scoop, Parry got full access and then a tape recorded interview – the transcripts which were apparently provided by Thaksin’s staff themselves.
So Thaksin went into this interview eyes wide open and obviously expecting some political capital out of it.
Now take a look at the news story and look at the actual transcript of the interview.
Well actually you can’t check the news story now if you are in Thailand, unless its posted somewhere else, because that has been blocked, well, so says the man you cannot gag in ‘The Times’.
Actually the interview has not been blocked which is quite surprising, or it it? No not really, because it is the news story more than the interview, which has caused the offence.
Enter the conquering hero
Actually the author has missed the bottom line on this story and that it is quite simply: Thailand is going to the dogs but Thaksin says will come back to power in Thailand by hook or by crook with Puea Thai after the next election, his sins will be wiped, he will be found not guilty, and he then can put the country together again and save us all.
If he wants to march in, he will march in from the north, but he wants to avoid bloodshed, he says, thankfully for once.
Richard Lloyd Parry, in the interview labours a lot on, and questions, the role of the Monarchy and or institution thereof. That is all perfectly valid. But Thaksin Shinawatra is very careful in his answers, whether we believe him or not. He has said nothing against the monarchy, but criticised advisors to the monarchy and even suggested they tried to ‘assassinate him’. In fact the Times claims that Thaksin wants the monarchy reformed, but that comes from a question by RLP and Thaksin is answering ‘Yes, Yes’ to reforms of institution around the monarchy.
So actually the interview does not stand up the story but perhaps could have done had he asked the appropriate questions and we have to assume the ‘Times’ has not censored the interview.
Actually anyone reading the interview might gather that the interviewee thinks he is one step short of canonisation. So blood has already been drawn there intentionally or otherwise.
But in fact what ‘The Times’ has done is to use the interview to convey a certain set of circumstances, and relationships, which have been widely talked about in journalistic and diplomatic circles in Bangkok, and London, and get them into a news story.
It would be inappropriate for me to spell out what that conspiracy, real or imagined, is.
That ‘Times’ agenda seems to be confirmed by a follow-up story by Richard Lloyd Parry headed: ‘The interview that dared to break Thai Royal taboo’.
I have always seen, rightly or wrongly, Richard Lloyd Parry, as a closet supporter of Thaksin, even though he once described him as unsavoury he has painted, the current Prime Minister, as much more of an ogre. I took ‘The Times’ to task about it about earlier in this year. See this for example ‘The charmer making a mess of his country’.
Richard, who lives in Tokyo, as a journalist has never had to live under Thaksin and things like the ’War on Drugs’ and media suppression and men with baseball bats at the FCCT.
The possibility that Thaksin could actually be guilty of the crimes brought against him have been given half hearted acceptance in ‘The Times’ if any at all.
The fact that he was democratically elected it seems is enough. This is about a threat to democracy. Of course democratically elected leaders can have their own agenda as Adolf did.
The newspaper was silent about his critics when Thaksin took over Manchester City. If you wanted to see criticism of Thaksin you had to look to the sports pages of the Daily Mail and Guardian.
Anyway I voluntarily parted company with ‘The Times’ earlier this year to return to my old friends at the ‘Evening Standard’ (or rather ’Eenie Stannit’ according to comedian Eric Morecombe).
By that time I was concerned about ‘The Times’ and went public about why, and after 10 years, they were suddenly equally concerned about my byline appearing in ‘numerous other newspapers’.
Though I have since written for them, I do not want to represent them. They would be foolish to disagree.
Anyway, who am I to say Thaksin is not a democrat and a man of the people which he described himself in the interview, agreeing he had some similarities to Aung San Suu Kyi? Well they were both democratically elected and removed from power for example.
Needless to say Thaksin is a lot friendlier with Burma’s ruthless military junta, with whom he does business, so you wont see him chanting in support of democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi.
(And ‘man of the people’? Well he was not exactly brought up in the fields of Isan. He comes from a long line of Thai Chinese Royal tax collectors (ironically) and muleteers doing something along the Thai Burma border and dealing with whatever used to cross there.)
On November 9th Richard also wrote this. ”Mr Thaksin is a paradox. While in office, he was feared and loathed by many Thais, especially the educated middle-class, as an opportunist and authoritarian who trampled on human rights, the media and independent institutions in the pursuit of power. For the rest of the population he was — and remains — Thailand’s most adored leader, re-elected repeatedly and forced out by a naked military coup.
“After the generals returned power to elected politicians Thais voted for Mr Thaksin’s supporters and proxies who were subsequently forced out of power not at the ballot box, but through a series of questionable court decisions.”
That’s one way of looking it (though I am not sure what a naked coup is) and clearly Richard thinks the courts were rigged in all the Thaksin cases. So lets not talk about what his new buddy Hun Sen in Cambodia is doing to his people and their land and homes, which he is bulldozing selling to foreigners, Thaksin included. Thaksin will not be talking about it, as he is now economic advisor to the Cambodian government.
What it means though is that, if and when Thaksin comes back into town on his white charger, and Thai courts become honest again and find him innocent, I’ll be following British public schoolboy Abhisit and paddling my own canoe out of town and heading for retirement like that other ex-British public schoolboy and former excellent but unelected Thai PM, Anand Panyarachun.
So why can’t former British public schoolboys rule Thailand?
I guess we are out of touch with the common man.
Monitoring and repressing for the monarchy
Political Prisoners in Thailand: November 20, 2009
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/monitoring-enemies-of-country-and-monarchy/
In a government that is increasingly authoritarian, Prime Minister’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey seems most enthusiastic about increased repression and censorship. The Nation (19 November 2009: “Govt to monitor Jakrapob’s phone-in: Satit”) reports that Sathit has reminded “media outlets to abide by the law when reporting the phone-in of fugitive red-shirt leader Jakrapob Penkair…”.
Sathit stated that the authorities would “closely monitored by authorities” because he believed that Jakrapob wanted to “smuggle weapons via the Northeast borders for an uprising during the rally from November 29 to December 3.”
He added: “The government is definitely keeping a close tap on Jakrapob who is acting hostile to the country and its revered institution…”.
Sathit repeatedly demonstrates the monarchy’s significant political role and the Democrat Party’s determination to repress dissent and opposition to protect the current order.
Update: Sathit is also cited in the Bangkok Post (21 September 2009: “Abhisit gets radio death threats”). This report claims that red shirt community radio stations in Chiang Mai had threatened Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.
The Post states this somewhat circumspectly this way: “Some community radio stations are said to have threatened to kill Mr Abhisit in a bomb attack during his visit.” It adds that Democrat Party MP for Bangkok “Boonyod Sukthinthai lodged a complaint with … police against the host of a programme broadcast on FM 92.5 community radio in Chiang Mai. The complaint demanded an investigation into Phetchawat Wattanapongsirikul, host of the Sapha Kafae (Coffee Council) programme, and his co-host, who was not identified.Both were accused of encouraging their audience to come out to protest violently against Mr Abhisit. Mr Boonyod also handed over audio clips of the programme broadcasts to the CSD for further investigation.”
If it is true that a station called for Abhisit to be killed, then this is a serious issue. As serious as PAD speakers calling for the beheading of Hun Sen, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, and Thaksin Shinawatra, alluding to an old Thai saying of shedding blood to wash royal feet.”
As is now usual, the Democrat Party-led government is awash with double standards. So PAD can call for murder and not a peep from them, but an allegation of a similar call from Chiang Mai reds and Minister Sathit is wound up into repress mode yet again.
He has ordered the community radio stations in Chiang Mai be closely monitored and he claims “have repeatedly incited red shirt supporters to protest against Mr Abhisit’s visit to the province on Nov 2.”
That might be true, but if Sathit knows it, why does he also state that there is no clear evidence? Indeed, he says: “When there is clear evidence that they have violated criminal law and community radio regulations, the stations will be shut down and face legal action…”. Is Sathit simply trying to intimidate opposition and red shirt community radio stations?
The government is planning “[e]xtra-tight security is being planned. Twenty companies of police and another 20 companies of troops from the 3rd Army will be deployed during the prime minister’s visit.”
Abhisit “warned Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters in Chiang Mai to stop their hostile action, saying they should work with the government to bring about peace and reconciliation in the province.”
Questioning Amnesty International’s double standards
Political Prisoners in Thailand: November 21, 2009
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/questioning-amnesty-international-again/
Also available as สงสัยในสองมาตรฐานขององค์กรนิรโทษกรรมสากล
Yesterday PPT posted on the Asian Human Rights Commission statement on the use of the Computer Crimes Act as a substitute for the lese majeste law and Reporters Without Borders released a report the day before criticizing the use of this other laws that limit expression.
PPT assumes that because these “crimes” are political and related to the monarchy in Thailand, that Amnesty International will say nothing. That has been its “policy.”
But what are they doing elsewhere? On 16 November 2009, there was this:
Urgent Action 308/09 – Prisoners of conscience – Bloggers Jailed in Azerbaijan: URGENT ACTION APPEAL – From Amnesty International USA
Two “activists and bloggers” are said by AI to “have been sentenced to two and a half years and two years respectively in an unfair trial. Amnesty International believes the charges against them were fabricated and they have been imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression.” One of the men posted “a satirical video … criticizing the Azerbaijani government … on the video-sharing website YouTube.”
Interestingly, in this case, the men are jailed on charges that don’t relate to their postings. However, AI considers them prisoners of conscience because the government has targeted them for their political views.
So can anyone at Amnesty International explain why Thailand is different for the organization? How is the jailing of people in Thailand different? PPT sees that the details are different. In fact, the use of the law is harsher in Thailand (jailing for 20 years, reduced to 10 – Suwicha Thakor) and being held for long periods without bail (Suwicha and Nat Sattayapornpisut), but political “crimes” are very similar. Indeed, in Thailand a special law has been created to facilitate intimidation and to allow for people to be “imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression.” That law was put in place by an illegitimate, military-backed government. The trials of these Thais could never be considered fair.
We wonder how it is that Amnesty International feels comfortable operating with such double standards.
Readers may want to ask AI, but be aware that emailing AI produces, in PPT’s experience, no response at all: Amnesty International USA, 600 Pennsylvania Ave SE 5th fl, Washington DC 20003, Email: uan@aiusa.org, http://www.amnestyusa.org/, Phone: 202.544.0200, Fax: 202.675.8566
[FACT comments: A nickname in Thai denotes a gangster. This case demonstrates precisely how screwed up our politics are.]
Seh Daeng gets 1 year for defamation
- Bangkok Post: November 20, 2009
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/160545/seh-daeng-gets-12-months-for-libel
The Criminal Court on Friday sentenced army specialist Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, alias Seh Daeng, to 12 months in jail without suspension for defaming former police chief Sereepisut Taemeeyaves.
The court ruled Maj-Gen Khattiya guilty of wrongfully accusing Pol Gen Sereepisut of using false evidence to seek a court warrant to arrest him and of involvement with a casino.
Maj-Gen Khattiya submitted a request for bail, pending appeal, using his position as a guarantee. The court was considering his request.
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: Now we might be onto something! I’ve got as much hope as anybody but O’Bama (born in Ireland) has no hope of fixing the US. There are simply too many fat cats for one man (and, believe me, he is alone) to stop the military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical-agribusiness gravy train. (Kind of pessimistic, eh?) Sweden gave the 2009 Nobel PEACE Prize to a US president supporting military regimes everywhere in the world, spending billions a day on war and prisons. The Internet is the only real hope for true, global participatory democracy. Let’s claim the prize—I can’t think of anyone or anything else worthy.]
Internet For Peace Nobel 2010 Candidate Initiative
http://www.internetforpeace.org/
We have finally realized that the Internet is much more than a network of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity. Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society.
And this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict.
That’s why the Internet is a tool for peace.
That’s why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence.
And that’s why the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net.
A Nobel for each and every one of us.
