Suwicha Thakor ordained-Prachatai
25-07-10
[FACT comments: Prison served as an ashram for Suwicha Thakor. We’re so glad one more political prisoner is free and that he’s using what he learned.]
Suwicha Thakor ordained
Prachatai: July 4, 2010
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/1940
Suwicha Thakor has entered the monkhood in his hometown of Nakhon Phanom, after being released from prison where he was detained for over a year on lèse majesté charges.
On 11 July, Suwicha was ordained at Chonlatharn Bunyawas Temple in Nakhon Phanom’s Thakor subdistrict, and was given the religious name Khema Jitto.
He told Prachatai that he would not talk about worldly matters ‘for the reasons which are already known.’
Now he has the task of a Buddhist of disseminating Dharma which is the way to be free from suffering, and to help others to be free from suffering is a great merit, he said.
Although he has been immersed in the Buddhist teachings, he admitted that he still had ‘hindrances’, which are obstacles to Buddhist practitioners, regarding the innocent people who had suffered from recent events. He said that they should turn to dharma.
When he was imprisoned, he was determined to become a monk if he was released.
His younger brother told Prachatai that Suwicha had changed a lot.
Suwicha cited the teaching of the late Buddhadasa, a renowned and respected monk, to look at the good sides of things. ‘They have good and bad sides. Never mind. Just choose [to see] the good sides which do some good to the world. Don’t seek to know the bad sides. […] Simply put, if we talk only about good sides of each other, we’ll never quarrel and society will be peaceful.’
Source:
[FACT comments: One more issue used for social control over women.]
Colleges get a dressing down over short skirts
The Nation: July 13, 2010
The Office of the Private Education Commission (Opec) has warned private vocational schools they will be shut down for a week if they have students who are inappropriately dressed.
Opec director Charnwit Thapsuwan said yesterday it had received public complaints about students in Bangkok wearing inappropriate uniforms – especially skirts that were “too short”.
Opec had notified private vocational colleges to get tough on such students. If there continued to be complaints about any college’s students, the institution would be asked to explain and could end up being punished by having all classes suspended for one week, as per regulations, Charnwit said.
Students who overly expose their flesh could become the victims of crime, he said, and urged parents to watch what their children were wearing.
BURNING ISSUE
Banned ad should be seen on TV
Jintana Panyaarvudh
The Nation: July 19, 2010
The ban of a television commercial entitled “Kor Thod… Pra Thet Thai” (Apologise…Thailand) from free television has caused a flood of criticism in social media and web-boards. But there was still no explanation from the television station joint censorship committee which ordered the ban.
The advertisement was created by the “Positive Network”, a new initiative by many major communication groups in Thailand. The network consists of people from advertising, public relations, media agencies, and cable and TV associations.
According to Kom Chad Luek newspaper, the committee ordered the ban because they thought the message and pictures used in the ad were too extreme and risked defamation. The paper quoted Bhanu Inkawat, one of the ad’s creators and founder of the network as saying the panel told him they were concerned about the way the story was told and the order of the pictures.
“We understand the committee and are reviewing it to try to make it pass the censor,” Bhanu said.
The creator tells the story by using pictures and script to depict what happened to the country and questions society. The music “Auld Lang Syne” was used in the background.
Here is a translation of the script:
“Did we do anything wrong? Did we handle anything too harshly? Did we listen to only one side of the story? Did we perform our duties? Did we really think of people? Were we corrupt? Did we take too much? Did the media make people better informed? Did our society deteriorate? Did we love money more than the rightness? And did we only wait for help? If there was anyone to blame, it would be all of us. Apologise Thailand. And if there was anyone who can fix the problems, it would be all Thais. Keep the loss in mind and turn it into our force.”
The script is straightforward, though a bit satirical. Good and stunning pictures chosen to depict the story – though some may have been too harsh and sarcastic. The pictures showed the burning of the Central World building and soldiers pointing guns at protesters – as it really happened.
Feeling of hope
When I first watched the advertisement on Youtube I really felt sad and depressed for what I saw in the video. But the message “Keep the loss in mind and turn it into our force” at the end made me feel stronger and hopeful – though the pictures depicted in the last message were quite soft and normal. They wanted to tell people that despite the darkness, there is always some light.
I thought the strong signal in the advertisement was that the loss to the country was caused by us all, and we have to take responsibility at any cost. The creator didn’t point blame at anyone or any group, but tried to remind Thais of the loss and warned people they should not let it happen again.
This advertisement is one of the best – and Thais should not miss it. It has come at the right time and the right place, when people feel helpless about what has happened over the last few years. Thais should watch it and think creatively about what we should do next to help restore the country – instead of watching it to find wrongdoers.
The censorship committee should review the ban sooner rather than later. Even the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) put the advertisement on its website. Stopping this being shown on free television means nothing as nowadays people can watch it via the Internet and social media.
Are we too sensitive – or do we lack courage to hear and see the truth?
[FACT comments: Purely the same lip-service we’ve come to expect of our PM. He could order the video not to be blocked!]
PM suggests censors review ban on TV ad
- Bangkok Post: July 20, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/186906/pm-suggests-censors-review-ban-on-tv-ad
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has suggested the censorship board reconsider its ban on the TV commercial “Thailand, We Apologise”.
Mr Abhisit said on Monday he has watched the advertisement on the internet (YouTube link here) and he thinks its producers only had good intentions in getting their message across to the Thai people.
The prime minister said the producers wanted to instil a sense of responsibility in all Thais and encourage them to take action to correct past mistakes.
The prime minister said he has no idea why the commercial has fallen foul of the censors.
The censorship board is made up of representatives from all free TV channels.
The board has replaced the now-defunct Radio and Television Broadcasting Regulatory Board, which was under the Public Relations Department.
The commercial was produced by a group calling itself Positive Network. It is made up of members of the advertising and public relations industries along with social networks.
See also:
Commentary: Apologies for such an innocuous ad
The commercial features scenes of riots and arson during May, clashes between security forces and protesters, and demonstrations by both the red shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship and the yellow shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy.
The commercial was first screened to enthusiastic applause at an event called “Ignite Thailand” held at Lumpini Park on June 16.
The censors said the commercial has been banned because it could create conflict and there is a risk of lawsuits being filed by parties affected by the riots.
Mr Abhisit said he has discussed the matter with PM’s Office Minister Ong-art Klampaibul, who is in charge of state media.
Mr Abhisit said the censors should step forward to offer an explanation of why they have banned the advertisement.
They should listen to the voices of others and review their decision, Mr Abhisit said, adding he did not think the content of the commercial had any strong political leanings.
Mr Ong-art said no government agencies have been involved in censorship of TV commercials.
Mr Ong-art said the disbandment of government censors followed complaints of heavy state interference.
It is agreed that censorship responsibilities rest with members of the censorship board from each television channel who decide for themselves if commercials break the law, Mr Ong-art said.
He said open-minded judgement and tolerance towards different views will help create a good atmosphere in the country.
He said he has raised the matter with the censorship board and they said the ban on the commercial is their collective decision.
The board has told the producer of the advertisement to “correct it” and resubmit it for approval, Mr Ong-art said, adding that he has watched it and he saw nothing amiss.
Bhanu Inkawat, previously a well-known advertiser and founder of the Positive Network, said the producer will make changes to the commercial so it can gain approval to go on air.
Peace video censored-SEAPA
25-07-10
[FACT comments: So are we expected to hide 90 murders in the streets and nearly 2,000 wounded by govt troops taboo? One group makes a highly responsible and sensitive video…and are banned!]]
Self-regulatory body censors TV ad on Thai political conflict
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA): July 20, 2010
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/1950
The Thai Television Station Joint Censorship Committee recently banned a TV ad that featured the violent events in Bangkok in May this year, saying that the commercial might spark another round of conflict, media reports said.
“Matichon”, a Thai language newspaper, reported on 20 July that the censors board said the ad violated Article 22 (4) of the 1979 Consumer Protection Act. The article bans the dissemination of a picture that “causes rifts among or undermine the unity of Thai people.” The commercial showed an image of a torn Thai flag.
Entitled “Kor Thod, Prathet Thai” (“We’re Sorry, Thailand”), the ad featured a montage of video footages taken at the height of the Red Shirt rally, its dispersal and the ensuing riots in Bangkok in May.
According to the blog, “Wise Kwai’s Thai Film Journal,” (http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=MM9YV&m=1ebJoP_kYzKXin&b=_npkSs48YA6ROb…) (where a copy of the ad is uploaded), while a slow tempo version of the song “Auld Lang Syne” is being played in the ad’s background, a narrator asks rhetorical questions such as, “Have we done something wrong? Have we been too violent? Have we done our duty? Have we thought of the public? Have we cheated? Have we taken advantage? Have we edified the public? Have we degraded ourselves? Have we cared more about money than what’s right? Have we just waited around for help?”
It went on: “If someone is to blame, that someone is all of us. We’re sorry, Thailand. And if these problems are to be fixed, then it is us Thais who must stand up and fix them. Let’s engrave these losses in our hearts and turn them into strength.”
The ad was first screened in an event called “Ignite Thailand” held at Lumpini Park on 16 June 2010, where it received enthusiastic applause from spectators.
The ban has sparked a debate in Thailand, even eliciting a comment from PM Abhisit Vejjaijiva himself. The “Bangkok Post” in its 20 July 2010 issue quoted the prime minister as saying that the producers of the ad appeared to have only good intentions “in getting their message across to the Thai people.”
Abhisit said the producers “wanted to instill a sense of responsibility in all Thais and encourage them to take action to correct past mistakes.”
The ad was produced by a group called Positive Network, composed of members of the advertising and public relations industries in Thailand, along with social networks.
According to new PM Office Minister in charge of media affairs Ong-art Klampaiboon, the commercial was not totally banned but the censorship board advised it to be altered before sending back for a
final approval. He denied the government’s involvement in the decision.
ASTV Manager online news quoted Onga-rt as saying the censors board and the ad producer were to meet again on 20 July to discuss ways of resolving the situation.
According to Ong-art, the government could not intervene in the board’s decision since it is a self-regulating agency. “There is a clear set of laws about what is allowed and what is not,” he said.
“Everyone has a different perspective. For me, this commercial was produced with good intent,” he said.
[FACT comments: What kind of govt do we have here anyway? The PM is the only one to call for limiting emergency powers to only 19 provinces. And the rest of govt are a bunch of hard-asses who want us all under the yoke so that they are not unduly burdened by the rule of law. Hey, listen up: the ‘emergency’ is over. It’s overtime to get back to some pitiable semblance of what passes for democracy here in Thailand.]
STATE OF EMERGENCY
Activists see red over decision to keep decree
- Anucha Charoenpo
- Bangkok Post: July 7, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/185241/activists-see-red-over-decision-to-keep-decree
Human rights activists are slamming the government’s decision to maintain the state of emergency in 19 provinces including Bangkok for another 90 days.
The cabinet yesterday agreed unanimously to revoke the emergency decree in five provinces – Kalasin, Nan, Nakhon Pathom, Nakhon Sawan and Si Sa Ket – but to maintain it in Bangkok and 18 other provinces. The decree was due to expire in all 24 provinces today.
Angkhana Neelapaijit, chairwoman of the Working Group on Justice for Peace, slammed the move to extend the decree in the 19 provinces.
Mrs Angkhana said there was no benefit to the country in keeping the decree in place as it could be used as a government tool to crack down on political opponents.
“The situation in the country is now considered almost stable, so the law should no longer remain in place,” she said.
“The government must learn a lesson from the five-year enforcement of the emergency decree in the deep South. Has it been able to restore peace?”
Ananchai Thaiprathan, a member of the National Reconciliation Commission set up by the Thaksin Shinawatra government to look into the violence in the lower South, said the extension of the emergency decree will create a state of fear and undermine the government’s reconciliation plan.
“The reconciliation plan requires unity from people from all walks of life,” Mr Ananchai said.
“But if we live in such an atmosphere [of fear], how can we work together and stay united to achieve our goals?”
The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation recommended to the cabinet through its director, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, that all 24 provinces remain under the decree because of concerns the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship was engaged in underground activities.
But the government decided to lift the state of emergency in five of the provinces where it believed the situation has started to return to normal, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said.
Deputy senate speaker Nikhom Waiyaratchapanich said he was concerned about the extension.
As long as the emergency decree remains in effect, the government cannot achieve its reconciliation plan because the law can be used at any time to attack opponents. Somchai Homlaor, chair of the Campaign for Human Rights Committee, said the emergency decree should be revoked in all provinces and the CRES should end its role as soon as possible.
There is no need for the centre to exist under the present circumstances, he said.
The prime minster argued that it is not easy for authorities in charge of the law to violate human rights as they have to abide by the rules.
Mr Suthep explained that although some red shirt protest leaders have fled the country or been arrested, other UDD key figures are still free.
[FACT comments: In addition to online pharmacies selling the morning after pill, now the FDA is going after websites selling health supplements. Why does the FDA not contact the website owners with their concerns rather than censoring? Adding 155 to the censorship total get at least 210,265 sites blocked.]
FDA orders 155 websites shut
Bangkok Post: July 8, 2010
http://m.bangkokpost.com/articledetail.php?channelID=1&articleID=185444
The Food and Drug Administration has ordered the closure of 155 websites which it claims carry exaggerated and unreliable advertisements for drugs and diet supplements.
The closed sites include those for the ulcer treatment Misoprostol, sex drugs, stem cell treatments, glutathione, weight-loss pills, oseltamivir and birth control pills.
Another 62 websites have been blocked to avoid the spread of possibly harmful information.
Apichart Hoonchamlong, a pharmacist with the FDA’s post-marketing drug monitoring group, said many radio and television advertisements also contain misleading information and improper language and are unauthorised.
”It’s impossible to chase all these exaggerated pharmaceutical ads as hundreds of websites are opened every day,” Mr Apichart told a forum yesterday on the effort to monitor drug supply and use in Thailand.
”Health agencies need at least one and a half months to close down these websites providing unreliable information.”
Foundation for Consumers manager Saree Ongsomwang said most health websites are geared towards direct sales of herbal drugs and diet supplements.
Some claim these traditional remedies can cure chronic illnesses and diseases such as cancer, kidney disease, joint and bone diseases and the effects of strokes.
Weight-watchers, people with chronic diseases and the elderly are warned to consider the information provided by these advertisements very carefully before buying. Officials have failed to control the advertising of these drugs sold on the internet.
”We’re facing a crisis of misleading commercials for dietary supplements,” Ms Saree said.
”The law is outdated. There is no reliable source on which people can depend. The public sector is not allowed to get involved in any monitoring process.”
Niyada Kiatyingungsulee, of Chulalongkorn University’s faculty of pharmaceutical sciences and manager of Thai Drug System Watch, said an independent body on consumer protection should work together with state agencies, academics and the FDA to monitor and manage a health information database that is open to the public.
This will help prevent people from being exploited by substandard diet supplements or pharmaceutical products, Ms Niyada said.
Thai teen pregnancies-Bangkok Post
25-07-10
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: Because I have a teenage daughter, this issue is crucially important to me. I recently saw a documentary film about a group of 17 US high school girls, aged 13-17, who made a pact to all get pregnant within the same school year! Even before this incident, their high school had its own daycare centre…for the students’ children! Censoring pornography, banning short skirts, restricting alcohol sales, barring teenagers from birth control, the morning-after pill and abortion have had no effect whatsoever. In fact, if anybody’s been watching, our teenage pregnancies have grown astronomically to become the highest in Asia. All these efforts fail, of course, because of a simple biological imperative—we discover it’s fun to fuck. All we can do as parents is to talk openly and honestly from early ages about sex and its consequences, be open to any and all discussion your child wants to initiate and don’t be judgemental. Honestly, we need sex education in Thai schools.]
Opinion
Safeguarding teenage girls
Bangkok Post: July 15, 2010
http://m.bangkokpost.com/articledetail.php?channelID=3&articleID=186198
With barely any media coverage, a small piece of legislation that is both controversial and important, especially to pregnant students, was submitted to Public Health Minister Jurin Laksanavisit for consideration on Monday. Apparently because of the unconventional nature of the bill which is bound to provoke heated debate, the meeting decided that at least one public hearing must be staged to gauge public opinion about the draft bill before it is forwarded to the cabinet for approval.
In essence, the bill proposed by the National Reproductive Health Committee seeks to allow pregnant students to take maternity leave and, after giving birth, to return to classes if they want to.
The bill also seeks to make available facilities to provide reproductive health counselling and assistance for pregnant women who are not ready to bear children or who are not ready to raise a child.
There are no official figures on how many students are saddled with unwanted or unexpected pregnancies each year and how many of them are expelled from school or forced to leave prematurely to avoid social stigma.
However, the following statistics from the Health Department should provide a rough picture of the huge problem of unwanted or unexpected pregnancies involving women under 20 years of age. According to a survey, 15% of all pregnancies within a year totalling 800,000 cases involve women under 20, while pregnancies involving teenagers under 15 represent 1.5% or 10,000 cases. The abortion statistics amount to 100,000 cases a year.
(Since abortion is a crime under the Thai criminal code unless it is carried out by certified physicians for the sake of the mother’s health or when the mother is a rape victim, it is assumed that most of the abortions undertaken are illegal).
Students with unwanted or unexpected pregnancies are generally left with two equally painful options. The first is to undergo illegal abortion so that they may continue their studies and, more importantly, avoid the unbearable embarrassment of having to face their family and peers.
The other choice is to quit school – before being expelled when administrators find out.
Minister Jurin hit the nail on the head when he said that expelling pregnant students does not help reduce pregnancy among teenagers or students; instead, this punitive measure often ruins the future of the girls.
What Mr Jurin did not say is that often pregnant students choose to undergo illegal abortions, therein putting their lives at risk in the hands of quack doctors, in order that they may continue their studies.
The notion in some quarters that such a bill could encourage more teenage students to engage in pre-marital sex and to become pregnant, is nonsensical. First, pre-marital sex is already the norm rather than the exception in this country.
Second, no girl in her right mind would want to get pregnant simply because there was a law that allowed them to take maternity leave and to return to class later on.
The plight of pregnant students has been inadequately addressed for far too long. Many girls have had their future ruined while countless others have succumbed to abortions which went terribly wrong.
It is high time Thailand had the proper legislation such a bill would provide, to safeguard not only the dignity of our teenage girls, but their very lives.
CULTURE SPHERE
Thai filmmmakers still at the mercy of censors
Phatarawadee Phataranawik
The Nation: June 19, 2010
GOOD NEWS for fans who couldn’t score a ticket to last night’s press-and-VIP screening of Apichatpong “Joei” Weerasethakul’s award-winning film “Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives” (“Lung Boonmee Raluek Chat”) at the SFX Emporium cinema.
The film has passed the censorship board and been rated 15+, clearing the way for more screenings – sooner rather than later – of the Palme d’Or winner at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.
It hasn’t always been the case for Joei’s films. His “Sud Sanaeha” (“Blissfully Yours”) won the Un Certain Regard prize at the 2002 Cannes Festival, but had sexually explicit scenes chopped for its limited run in Thailand. The DVD is on shelves here, but it’s the censored version.
The director fought a two-year battle with censors over his 2006 film, “Syndromes And A Century” (“Sang Sattawat”). Commissioned by Peter Sellars for the New Crowned Hope Festival in Vienna, to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Mozart’s birth, “Syndromes” premiered at the Venice Film Festival and screened at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival and other festivals. Last year, it was ranked the No 1 movie of the decade by the Toronto Cinematheque.
When it finally unspooled at Bangkok’s Paragon Cineplex in 2008, it was a bastardised version. Cultural minders deemed six scenes inappropriate, ranging from a Buddhist monk playing a guitar to doctors drinking whisky in a hospital break room. Apichatpong replaced the six sensitive scenes with scratched black film, so viewers would know for certain that something was missing. And this film he devoted to his mum and dad. With a heartbroken feeling, I watched that version with tears in my eyes.
The censorship prompted Apichatpong and fellow filmmakers to form the Free Thai Cinema Movement and protest the new film law, put into effect at the end of 2007. While the law includes a new ratings system to replace the 1930 censorship regime, the new rules are viewed by filmmakers as too restrictive because they still give censors the power to ban films.
But Apichatpong has taken a different approach with “Uncle Boonmee”.
“I won’t be pressuring or lobbying the censor board. Let them work freely through the normal process,” he said last Sunday at a party held in his honour at the Thai Film Archive.
Taking inspiration from a sermon book written by a monk in Apichatpong’s hometown Khon Kaen, “Uncle Boonmee” is about a terminally ill man who returns to the countryside to die. He’s visited by his dead wife’s ghost. The drama involves a princess who has sex with a catfish, and a monkey ghost with red glowing eyes that skulks through the forest.
The 15+ rating, which advises that the film is appropriate for viewers aged 15 and older, is seen as a victory by cinematic pundits, who guessed the catfish sex and karaoke-singing clergyman might prompt an 18+ rating, or even the restrictive 20+, which bars anyone under 20 and requires ID checks.
Apichatpong acknowledges that his film “is not for everyone” and that it has a limited audience. But there’s no doubt the Palme d’Or has proved an inspiration for Thai independent filmmakers.
“I deeply appreciate his courage in fighting the government agencies that have tried to destroy the beauty of art. Joei has so much spirit. He’s used his prizes to advance the independent film business in Thailand. He is basically the representative of all Thai independent moviemakers,” artist-filmmaker Manit Sriwanichapoom said in a moving tribute at last Sunday’s party.
Together with Apichatpong, Manit been fighting against the Culture Ministry’s film-funding scheme under the “Thai Khem Khan” campaign, in which the bulk of funds go to big-budget historical epics, leaving many smaller, independent projects unfunded.
The Culture Ministry recently said it would decrease funding for the “Naresuan” historical drama by MC Chatrichalerm Yukol, but only because the Commerce Ministry was also giving money to “Naresuan”, and not because of the filmmakers’ protests.
Still, there are signs the government is starting to listen. But is it because the authorities are starting to see cinema as an art form, rather than just an entertainment product? Perhaps, in his own soft-spoken way, the winner of one of cinema’s greatest accolades really has put pressure on bureaucrats.
[FACT comments: We’ve heard many negative comments about this case. Perhaps the plaintiff is a Red, and of course he’s using Thaksin’s lawyer, but let’s not that interfere with our powers of circumspection. It appears that journalists and rescue workers were targeted by military snipers. The courts in every country are used to support the power structure. However, this is a useful first effort.]
Thai PM, 12 others sued for ‘attempted murder’
MCOT News: July 22, 2010
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/385343-thai-pm-abhisit-sued-for-attempted-murder/
An independent reporter on Thursday filed a lawsuit against Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and other 12 persons for attempted murder and mayhem in the army’s security operation to retake the anti-government Red Shirt rally site at Khok Wua intersection on April 10.
Bodin Watcharobol, who described himself as an independent reporter, asked Udom Prongfa, personal legal adviser of the fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to file a suit against Prime Minister Abhisit and other 12 persons at Criminal Court.
Among the 12 named are Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, director of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), Defence Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, army chief Gen Anupong Paochinda, CRES spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd and acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn.
They have been accused of the attempted killing of demonstrators and of mayhem which led to a number of deaths and injuries from the army operation on Ratchadamnoen Avenue’s Khow Wua intersection and at Satriwittaya School on April 10.
Mr Udom said this time it is the people themselves who filed a lawsuit against the government in order to protect their rights and freedoms, saying the government’s order is inappropriate.
The lawyer said he had earlier filed a complaint at Nang Lerng police station but that no progress has been made, so he decided to lodge the complaint in court. He asserted that Mr Thaksin had nothing to do with his move.
Mr Udom said he has brought copies of a CD about the April 10 army crackdown as evidence.
The court set the preliminary hearing on the case on September 13.
Twenty-five people including the deputy chief of staff of the 2nd Infantry Division Romklao Thuwatham were killed and more than 800 persons, including soldiers, were wounded in the bloody confrontation between Red Shirt protesters and army troops.
The government explained the high toll of casualties was caused by a group of unidentified persons in black outfits and masks who mingled with the red-shirted protesters. They fired M79 grenades, M67 hand grenades and automatic weapons at the troops and the crowd.
Reporter’s lawsuit against PM for crackdown accepted
National News Bureau: July 22, 2010
The Criminal Court has accepted a lawsuit filed by a freelance reporter against Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and 12 other figures for injuring others during the military’s crackdown of the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) protest.
Mr Udom Prongfa, a lawyer representing Mr Bodin Watcharobol, a freelance reporter, filed the lawsuit against 13 plaintiffs with the court. The suit claimed the reporter was injured in May 2010, when the army under the order of the Premier sealed off Ratchaprasong Intersection, the main protest site of the UDD in May 2010.
The 13 plaintiffs included Prime Minister Abhisit, his Deputy for Security Affairs Suthep Thaugsuban, Army Chief General Anupong Paochinda, Spokesperson to the Center for the Resolution and Emergency Situation Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, and 9 other military personnel.
The Criminal Court has accepted the case for further proceedings. Schedule for the first hearing is set for 13 September 2010, at 9.00 hrs.
Mr Bodin announced that he would file more lawsuits next week, saying he had solid evidence that 30 other people were also injured from the same incidents. He added that civil suits would be filed seeking damages for personal injuries.
