Thai "Students" Fight for Thaksin, Not Democracy

Protesters want current government to step down - won't admit Western-backed billionaire fugitive and rights abuser Thaksin Shinawatra and his proxies will most certainly take power if they do. 

August 10, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - ATN) - Bangkok Post's Paritta Wangkiat would begin another op-ed supporting ongoing protests by claiming:

Remember how just two decades ago, Thailand was regarded as a progressive democracy among Asian nations? The recent arrests of a civil rights lawyer and a student activist, which appear to be the prelude to a widespread crackdown on youth movements, made me lose hope over the state of democracy in the country.

She also fondly remembers the 1997 "People's Constitution."

"Coincidentally," this was also the time period Thaksin Shinawatra and his proxies were in power.

What she conveniently forgets - somehow - is how over two decades ago and under the 1997 "People's Constitution" the worst human rights abuses in Thailand's history took place. The worst corruption also unfolded during this time - leading to the 2006 coup and political instability ever since.

Under the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra from 2001-2006 mass murder, assassinations, disappearances, and the silencing of the media were regular occurrences.

Perhaps these events were so tragic columnists like Paritta have blocked them from their minds? Much more likely however, is that they go unspoken because of how painfully inconvenient they are for a movement merely dressed up as being "pro-democracy."

For Paritta personally, she is a recipient of an "award" handed out by Amnesty International - a front posing as a human rights advocacy organization funded and directed by and for US special interests.

She is also has on at least one occasion contributed to an article in the Washington Post whitewashing former Thai prime minister, now fugitive billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra in which not a single mention was made about his killing of nearly 3,000 people while in power from 2001-2006.

Should Paritta or others like her speak actual truth she will certainly no longer be handed awards by US government fronts like Amnesty International or have her name included in articles published by papers like the Washington Post. Paritta and others must pick between the isolation that comes with actually having genuine integrity, or the fame and recognition associated with merely maintaining the illusion of having it.

"Save Pannika" From Her Poor Excuses - Op-Ed

June 10, 2019 (ATN) - Thai newspaper Khaosod - controlled by Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit's family - recently published an article titled, "Parina vs. Pannika: Pro-Prayuth MP Says Future Forward Rival's Grad Photo Violates 112." 

The old photo in question shows Future Forward spokeswoman Pannika Wanich and her classmates mocking a photo of the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej. She claims the photo was taken around the time of the 2006 coup.  

Khaosod would share Pannika's excuse, claiming: 

“At the time, it was the 2006 coup era. People were being attacked on- and offline for not being loyal to the monarchy…So as political science students we worriedly followed these events closely,” Pannika wrote. “After the coup, it was easy to land anyone in jail just by pointing at them and saying that they weren’t loyal. This hate mongering led us youths to talk about it ironically, to reflect on the tragedy affecting Thai society.” 

Still, Pannika added that “I deeply apologize to any citizens who are uncomfortable with the photo. But I hope everyone understands that youths are now growing up with questions about using the monarchy as a political tool…my friends and I believe in the system of a democratic government with the king as the head of state.”

Pannika's claims of using the "monarchy as a political tool" is repeated by those who opposed the 2006 coup, insisting the Thai military used the monarchy's popularity and power to aid in overthrowing the government.

But what government was overthrown in 2006 and why was Pannika and her political science friends so upset about it?

The 2006 Coup Ousted a Mass Murdering Dictator 

The 2006 coup ousted billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra who at the time was among the richest Thais in the Kingdom, guilty of having murdered 2,000+ innocent people in a politically-motivated "war on drugs" in just 90 days, crushing civil liberties through litigation and physical violence, plundering the nation, and attempting to consolidate power into a one party system - and doing so by undermining Thailand's existing institutions including the courts, military, and constitutional monarchy. 

A 2004 Human Rights Watch report titled, "Thailand: Not Enough Graves " (PDF) would note regarding Thaksin Shinawatra's "war on drugs" that (emphasis added): 

Despite his rhetorical commitment to humane responses to Thailand’s drug problem, Thaksin’s anti-drug campaign quickly evolved into a violent and murderous “war on drugs.” Beginning in February 2003, the Thaksin government instructed police and local officials that persons charged with drug offenses should be considered “security threats” and dealt with in a “ruthless” and “severe” manner. The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings...

Regarding the fate of rights defenders under Thaksin's regime, Amnesty International would admit: 

During Thaksin’s first term (January 2001 -- January 2005), eighteen human rights defenders were assassinated and one was disappeared. Although arrests have been made for some of the murders, many of the cases remain unresolved.

Thaksin also crushed dissent, particularly across the media. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) wrote in its report, "Attacks on the Press 2004: Thailand," that (emphasis added): 

Populist Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's press freedom record has been less than stellar since he took office in 2001. His political and financial interference, legal intimidation, and coercion continued to have a chilling effect on critical voices in the Thai press in 2004.

It is difficult to fathom why Pannika and her political science friends would oppose the removal of Thaksin Shinawatra from power. He and his regime represented everything Pannika and Future Forward claim they are fighting against today in Thailand. 

Not Just in Her "Past," But Today and in Her Future... 

Pannika was not only "worried" about the 2006 coup - she also opposed the 2014 coup which ousted Thaksin's sister - Yingluck Shinawatra - who openly ran as her fugitive brother's proxy. In fact, opposing the 2014 coup and the military which carried it out is Future Forward's only discernable "policy." 

Satish Sehgal Doesn’t Live Here Anymore – or Does He?

March 6, 2014 (Harlan Wolff) - I understand Satish Sehgal and his deep love of Thailand. He has lived here for fifty years and I have lived here for thirty-six. I know why he found joining the demonstrations irresistible, but unfortunately, I also knew what the government reaction would be. I believe that, like me, Mr. Sehgal has seen the dreadful changes that Thaksin brought to Thailand. I believe he cares very deeply.

I remember when this was the land of smiles and people were happy and friendly, but I watched a vile strategy turning Thai against Thai for political and financial gain.

I remember when Thaksin came to power and, like Gordon Gecko in Wall Street, he declared loudly, “Greed is good.”

I remember he was Deputy Prime Minister in 1997 and was accused of making huge profits from the disastrous floating of the baht that resulted in the Asian Financial Crisis.

I remember the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis and Thaksin’s allies, the Wall Street carpetbaggers, coming to town and making billions.

I remember the people being told that going into debt would make them rich.

I remember when the electoral system was hijacked by propaganda, intimidation and money.

Thailand and Shinawatra: Errors, Omissions From the Left

February 27, 2014 (By Michael Pirsch, Truthout | Op-Ed) - There is a false narrative from the Western media, including the internet alternative media, about the demonstrations in Thailand. This narrative is a simple-minded approach that pits the so-called "Bangkok elite" against the "rural poor" with the "Bangkok elite" mounting a full-scale attack on democracy. The protesters are described as ultra royalists, pro-military, along with a sprinkling of poor farmers from the South. The defenders of the Thaksin Shinawatra proxy government invariably are described as poor rice farmers from the northeast and north. Further, they are described as having risen from poverty since Thaksin first became prime minister and launched his populist schemes. These schemes have continued to be launched through Thaksin's proxy governments of 2007, 2008 and 2011. There is hardly any mention of Thaksin's over-the-top corruption,

People in the Western world are being fed lie upon lie, omission upon omission while the reasons for the protests are reduced to defending the "Bangkok elite" from poor northeastern farmers.

and the psychopathic murders of more than 2,800 innocent people during his three-month war on drugs is glossed over. No mention is made of his changing policies in the southernmost provinces, which are populated by Malay-speaking Muslims. The south was comparatively quiet, with the army in charge of working with the southerners until 2004, when Thaksin removed the army and installed the police as the group responsible for executing Thaksin's policies. The result has been more than 10,000 people killed between 2004 and 2014, including about 900 police and soldiers. There is absolutely no mention of the Tak Bae village massacre nor the Khrue Mosque battle. In the former, more than 89 people were killed by being stacked on top of each other resulting in death by suffocation. Thaksin blamed the victims for fasting during Ramadan, which caused them to be weak. The latter was an attack on a mosque following a day of fighting between southerners and Thai authorities. The attack on the mosque involved tanks and heavy artillery.

People in the Western world are being fed lie upon lie, omission upon omission while the reasons for the protests are reduced to defending the "Bangkok elite" from poor northeastern farmers. The Thai people across all sectors are fed up with Thaksin's dictatorship masquerading as democracy. How else can we define a government that is being openly micromanaged by a convicted former prime minister who lives outside Thailand? Defenders of the government always cite the 2011 election as legitimizing this government. The fact is Thaksin's proxy party, Pheua Thai, won 47.8 percent of the vote; not a majority. The fact is Thaksin bragged on the 2011 campaign posters that: "Thaksin Thinks; Pheua Thai Acts." Yet in 2011 Thaksin did not appear on the ballot and received no votes. His proxy received 47.8 percent.

Would this be acceptable in the United States or Europe? Would it be OK for the US to be run by a fugitive living in Dubai? Does an election wipe out all criminal wrongdoing?

Perhaps the worst articles I have read were written by Andre Vltchek for Counterpunch.org. Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. His previous works have been highly praised by Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and others. I, too, have enjoyed reading his articles over the years, but now I have some doubt about his veracity.

Read the whole article at Truthout...

Thaksin's Puea Thai is an Evolutionary Dead End (Op-Ed)

January 11, 2014 (ATN) - An evolutionary dead end is where a species develops characteristics that no longer enable it to adapt and thrive in its environment. Its strength in numbers will be reduced and eventually it will become extinct. These characteristics are generally in the form of overspecializations, so much so that they no longer help the species survive and instead threaten its very existence.

Thailand's Puea Thai Party, openly under the leadership of unelected convicted criminal, Thaksin Shinawatra, has reached an evolutionary dead end. It has overspecialized characteristics that make its political survival inevitably doomed.

Characteristics like insatiable and oafishly overt megalomania that drives it to recklessly attempt to grant itself amnesty for a wide array of criminal offences while it consolidates power by trying to dismantle the nation's many checks and balances. While they claim they have the electorate behind them and can thus do whatever is "popular," democracy exists within the confines of laws. In other words, you cannot "vote" to kill, steal, cheat, or subjugate others no matter how "popular" it is.

When Puea Thai moved to change the Constitution to allow for a fully elected Senate, they did so solely because they currently control the electorate. It would have turned the Senate into yet another echo chamber for Thaksin Shinawata - who again - is running the country illegally by nepotist proxy from abroad. The purpose of checks and balances is to create a government that is incapable of finding within it the power to "vote" to kill, steal, cheat, or subjugate others if and when it may be "popular" to do so. With a Parliament, Prime Minister's office, and a Senate all under Thaksin Shinawatra, that power would have existed.

Another overspecialized characteristic of Puea Thai is its use of violence, intimidation, and even outright terrorism. In 2010, Thaksin's "red shirt" leaders would take turns urging followers to commit mass arson in the closing days of a violent, armed pro-Thaksin insurrection. After admitting to fielding some 300 heavily armed professional mercenaries, and engaging in gun battles for weeks with the Thai military leaving some 92 dead, the "red shirts" would carry out their threats of arson leaving scores of buildings ablaze.

Video: A brief exposé of what the silent majority in Thailand have had to tolerate for years under the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his "red shirt" mobs. Here, various red shirt leaders, including Jatuporn Promphan, take turns openly conspiring to loot, destroy, and burn to the ground buildings across Bangkok. 

....

Op-Ed: Appeasement is Never the Answer to Festering Despotism

Thailand has those who support the regime, others who boldly oppose it, and there is another group - those who believe appeasement, idealism, and denial will solve everything. History disagrees.  

January 9, 2014 (ATN) - Bangkok Post's column writer Voranai Vanijaka is sharp. He is well informed and a skillful writer. He has demonstrated an astute awareness of the criminality of Thaksin Shianwatra and the danger he poses to Thailand as a democracy and as a free, functioning society. However, like all of us, Voranai is also human. For him, like many people throughout history when faced with festering despotism, he occasionally defers to denial, idealism, and appeasement, rather than courage. 

Image: Lest we forget where unchecked despotism leads. The appeasement, idealism, and denial of the German and Cambodian people allowed overt despotism to fester for years until it reached its only and inevitable conclusion - national tragedy. Many Thais have decided not to add their nation to the list of those that litter history's graveyard. Others have failed to learn the lessons of history and by doing so, invite disaster. 

....

This does not make Voranai bad - and in fact his approach might help the more zealous among Thais temper their views when they swing too far in the opposite direction. However, Voranai has ignored the lessons of history, and should others join him, will seal the fate of Thailand like so many other nations who have fallen after preventable national tragedies led by unchecked despotism.  

His latest column titled, "Suthep should be shut down, not Bangkok," argues: 

Rally and protest as you will, it is your democratic right, as well as a sound strategy in employing a democratic tool to check Thaksin's power. The success against the amnesty bill is a fine example of democracy in action.  But if your aim is to shut down the capital, taking everyone hostage and making us collateral damage in your fight for power, then you need to be shut down. Just like the red-shirts and Thaksin needed to be shut down three years ago.  Reform before an election? Reform is not done overnight. It takes years, three to five to be optimistic, to see any kind of results. Who's going to run the country, however poorly, in the meantime?   Suthep proposes setting up a people's council and to have a royally bestowed prime minister run the country, however poorly. But it is Pheu Thai that won the general election and the King has already endorsed a prime minister, her name is Yingluck. So who is Suthep to change what the people have voted for and what the King has endorsed? Voranai doesn't make excuses for Thaksin Shinawatra and his hereditary regime - he admits they are power hungry and bent on changing the system for their own benefit. However he, like many others in the "other" category - neither for nor boldly against the current regime - insists that the alternative is just as bad. Voranai finally fumbles where most others do as well:  Want to remove her? There are legal and democratic procedures.  What Voranai and Many Others are Missing

Oligarchy Island: Behind the Hong Kong protests (Op-Ed)

Editor's Note: Author Nile Bowie points out that US corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, gives Hong Kong high marks for economic freedom, while illustrating just how few freedoms there are, and the increasing disparity that exists in Hong Kong. This is an important point to understand, in terms of  how mainstream Western-style "freedom and progress" actually equates to benefits for the monied elite at the expense of the people on the street.

January 5, 2013 (RT-Nile Bowie) The recent wave of protest in Hong Kong may herald bigger problems. Economic woes may escalate the already-rampant acrimony between middle-class islanders and rich mainlanders, unless painful and politically sensitive reforms are taken. Since its transition from British colonial leadership to Chinese Special Administrative Region (SAR) status in 1997, street protests have become an increasingly common feature in post-handover Hong Kong. While mainland Chinese citizens lack civil liberties and adhere to strict limitations on personal political expression, residents of the semi-autonomous island enjoy a freer press and often stage mass demonstrations.

Though unthinkable in the mainland, many protestors in Hong Kong provocatively wear t-shirts depicting the iconic image of a lone man standing before People’s Liberation Army tanks in Tiananmen Square during the failed 1989 uprising. Since the handover, the island has boasted huge GDP figures and economic growth due to an influx of trade and tourism from mainland China, yet public disenfranchisement has reached record levels in recent times. Many Hong Kong residents have become angry with Beijing over their lack of participation in the hopelessly non-representative political machinery so characteristic of the 'one country, two systems' policy.