EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Thai Pro-Democracy Leader Jatuporn Prompan on BBC Claims of a Red Shirt "Armed Wing"

There are numerous claims - particularly from the BBC - that armed elements of the Thai pro-democracy Red Shirt movement have been staging violent attacks against the Thai fascist protests and rallies. 

So far these allegations remain only as claims and when pressed on what evidence exists the BBC have offered no primary evidence or source. In fact the BBC's Bangkok correspondent, Jonathan Head, has changed from claiming that third parties close to the armed wing told him who carried out the violence to claiming he has personally met those engaged in the violence. Which is it? He seems very confused.

Yet, despite this very slippery & dubious tertiary and secondary evidence  the BBC's correspondent has gone on to make further claims that "several thousand" armed Red Shirts now exist in a "cell structure."

Of course to operate such an armed cell structure with an explicit political agenda requires discipline, extensive training,  a chain of command and 1000s of weapons and tons of ammunition. The BBC's correspondent has yet to provide one single scintilla of evidence of any of that existing apart from a "source" he has spoken to.

So, I challenge Jonathan Head to put up or shut up.

It should also be noted that Mr Head has yet to provide a space to a single Red Shirt voice to challenge his claims - a clear breach of the BBC's rules on impartiality.

To give some balance to the debate I interviewed the leader of Thailand's pro-democracy UDD/Red Shirt movement, Jatuporn Prompan and asked him about the BBC's claims.

The BBC have stated as fact that an armed cell of the Red Shirts fired the M79 at Ratchaprasong that killed the children - do you have any thoughts on that?

"There is no evidence showing that the Red Shirts carried out this action. There is no point for the Red Shirts to attack civilians and now the case is being investigated by the police. The Red Shirts uphold peaceful means and to carry out such an attack would undermine the mass support we receive. It would also destroy ourselves [our movement].  Therefore I can confirm that none of the Red Shirts will carry out such an attack as it doesn’t benefit the movement. It’s up to the police to find out who carried out this attack."

Another claim from the BBC is that there are "1000s" of organised "armed cells" of Red Shirts - which would make for a very, large, well-organised armed wing - how would you respond to that?

"I can confirm that this is not true. If we have that kind of armed wing with the numbers that the journalists claim then it must be very obvious and easy to see. If there are one to two thousand armed people then there must be some evidence of them being trained. They must also “exist” in evidence - you cannot just say they are there. This is just like 2010 when there was an allegation that 500 Red Shirts were armed. So we responded to the allegation then that there was a lot of foreign and Thai media at Phan Fa and at Ratchaprasong, with no restricted areas. If there was an armed element then where were the pictures? But the fact was that there was no armed element. The story about an armed element existing was issued by the Red Shirt’s enemies in order to justify the killings of the Red Shirts." 

Whilst the army seem unable to act right now - at least in the open - are their threats real?

"The coup in Thailand could happen at any time. No one can confirm when will the ‘last time’ [a coup will be staged]. Thailand’s democracy is so fragile that the overthrow of it could happen at any time. No-one can guarantee when these coups will end. So, at the moment, I believe the PDRC [fascist] movement are trying to create a situation which will lead to a coup d’etat. This is the key goal of the PDRC because they cannot change anything by using other means. Their only option is a coup d’etat." 

How can the Red Shirts and the UDD help secure Thailand's democracy?

"By utilising the struggle of the vast majority of Thailand. They [the Red Shirts] represent the majority. The declaration of democracy will benefit all Thai citizens despite the differences in opinion and, eventually, the Red Shirts’ struggle will lead to change and will bring true democracy by the people. This is the goal of our struggle." 

Debunking the Flawed Thai Succession Crisis Thesis: Part 2

This is my 2nd post on debunking some of the myths that have crept in around the “Succession Crisis” thesis as being determinative of Thailand’s present political problems. 

True to form, after my last piece, the usual suspects launched into quite silly and pointless personal attacks against me on both twitter and Facebook. It’s a shame they can’t engage with debate in an honest and open manner.

No matter. It certainly wasn’t my intention to get into a slanging match with anyone when I wrote my last piece but it was certainly an attempt to critique some of the rather weak and unsubstantiated strategic arguments - those being that the Succession Crisis defines Thailand’s present political crisis.

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971).

To add to my previous post what I wanted to look at briefly was the rise of democracy in Thailand and how that has presented an epoch-shifting threat to the dominant, authoritarian hegemony that has coalesced itself around the military and the “network” rather than the historical footnote of the royal succession.  

This authoritarian hegemony, which has relied on myths of nation, a militarisation of certain key components of Thai civil society - particularly the academy - a virulently censorious culture that seeks to impose, through use of force, cultural and social homogeneity, and which ultimately relies on Army violence and a politicised judiciary to coerce this onto an increasingly unwilling population, can easily be defined as a political form of Thai fascism. 

Those who seek to maintain this fascistic status quo have historically centred themselves, and sought to dominate and control, the armed forces, the Democrat Party, the majority of the Thai media (and, in particular, the English language Thai media), significant elements in the academy and other educational institutes, the aristocracy, the civil service, the so-called “independent institutions”, cultural and religious bodies and the judiciary & legal professions. Thai fascism has also historically been supported internationally by US governments and the US military in exactly the same manner the US aided and abetted violent, anti-democratic and fascistic regimes in Central and South America.  

I’ve often been criticised for using the term “fascism” too loosely in the Thai context. I would counter that my use of the term is based on an analysis of the evidence as presented by Thailand’s body politic and that, in fact, I’ve only used the term as a factual descriptor not as a throw-away term of abuse. It is my view that Thai politics and culture is so deeply rooted in a virulent form of fascism that it has become naturalised and unconscious. Stepping out and stating “this is fascism” is far more of a “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment than actually stating that the Emperor, himself, is naked, so to speak.

So, in my view, the word “fascism” has been consciously underused to describe the politics of Thailand - hence my need to balance this up by its repeat use. This deliberate avoidance of the term is particularly so with much of the Western media in Bangkok, many of whom end up becoming subsumed into the unconscious ideology of Thai fascism and then personally invest in maintaining this social and economic status quo that they too benefit from individually. They collude with it - Thai-style Lord Haw Haws.

What is being challenged at the moment in Thailand, the real hegemonic crisis if you like and the precise moment where “a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”, is the threat posed to Thai fascism by the emergence of Thai democracy. In a sense a “new” Thailand is being born, a new political and social consciousness is slowly developing (albeit unevenly), and there’s literally nothing that Thai fascism can do to prevent that - unless, of course, it enacts a genocidal-scale massacre upon the Thai population.

The Succession Crisis in this scenario is a mere detail. One could even argue that without a Succession looming that the situation could be more tense and ready to fracture. The possibility of Succession at least gives the illusion of potential for some room for movement in the over-arching crisis. Without that possibility of change attitudes may be even more entrenched and extreme violence and civil war more likely.

The Succession Crisis as definer of the present political crisis is a nice easy hook. It looks perfect on book covers, as a conference title and also provides a nice, neat, easily identifiable backdrop for the lazy Western media corps in Bangkok. It also means that the Western media corps don’t have to explain their connivance with and refusal to report on the spectre of Thai fascism that has cast such a shadow over the “Land of Smiles.” But it needs to be challenged and it needs to attract the right kind of intellectual rigour before it can ever come close to being considered "determinative". Accepting it as a "received" wisdom should not be the position of progressive thinkers on Thai politics however attractive it may look as an oversimplified marketing device.

Koh Tee's Words Are Nothing When Set In The Context of Thai Fascist Violence

As Red Shirt militant Koh Tee goes on the run for his alleged “lese majeste” comments on a YouTube documentary the Yingluck government - true to form - has capitulated spectacularly at the first bit of pressure from the “Monarchy Network”.

The documentary in question - made by the partly Fox Media-owned & Murdoch-run “VICE” media group (the backstory on James Murdoch, who basically fled the UK after criminal activity at the now defunct News Of The World newspaper joining VICE's board is interesting) - mostly resembled brainless backpackers using Thailand’s increasingly violent political crisis as a backdrop for their hipster thrills. In fact so clueless were Vice that they didn’t even realise the danger they put both themselves and Koh Tee in by releasing the finished product that they did. 

No matter - the hysterical and histrionic response from the Thai fascists in the Army, Democrat Party and PDRC was entirely predictable. 

This Thai fascist bloc, who’ve murdered and killed Thai citizens with complete impunity, are notorious for perceiving words to be more dangerous than bullets. The Democrats can order troops to slaughter unarmed Thai civilians and rationalise this as “necessary”. The Thai Army can carry out that slaughter and claim, with a straight face, that it was nothing to do with them. The PDRC have repeatedly tortured, kidnapped and even murdered pro-democracy activists yet their leaders are never held to account or even properly investigated.

Yet, if a militant Red Shirt speaks a certain form of language about a particular subject, the entire weight of the state apparatus is brought to bear upon them in an instant.

Admittedly Koh Tee’s language and threats and his claims to being “armed”, would mark him down for arrest in most democracies.

However, it is also clear that the actions of Thai fascist bloc would not only mark them down for arrest in most democracies but would likely even have them marked down as the terrorist organisations they almost certainly are. 

In other democracies Abhisit’s political career would’ve ended years ago, Suthep and his gang of PDRC thugs would be serving 30year prison sentences and Prayuth would never have got anywhere near any position of responsibility in any organisation. Furthermore the Thai Army would be under civilian control, the February 2nd election result would’ve been ratified and there’d be no 112 lese majeste law with which to try Koh Tee.

In the final analysis Koh Tee’s words are nothing when compared to the vicious, violent and increasingly fascistic context of Thai politics within which he uttered them.

The government's relentless pursuit of Koh Tee, whilst failing to hold the Army to account for the 2010 Bangkok Massacre, further marks them down as preferring to kowtow to the unelected "network" than to serve the rule of law and the electorate. 

Another certainty is that the schism between Pheu Thai and their supporters will grow wider if they only act in the interests of the powerful. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikileaks Reveals Human Rights Watch As Supporters of Illegal Thai Army Coup

 With the strong smell of a coup or other Thai military engagement wafting through the air in Bangkok it seems apt to remind readers of Human Rights Watch's position on the last coup in Thailand in 2006.

In October 2006 Sunai Phasuk, HRW's Thai researcher, visited the US Embassy and made a number of astonishing comments to the assembled embassy staff which they recorded for posterity and which were then later released by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and Wikileaks.

HRW's secret support for an illegal military coup

In the cable dated October 17th 2006 Phasuk makes clear his support for an illegal military coup which overthrew not only a democratically elected government but also abrogated Thailand's 1997 Constitution (consider the most democratic in Thailand's history) by saying 

As a staunch anti-Thaksin activist [Phasuk] was initially relieved to see the Thaksin administration forced out. 

Reading further into the cable Phasuk also engages in an astonishing and shameless piece of Thai Political Doublespeak by claiming that a military coup designed to terminate democracy was actually an attempt to "restore democracy". 

In addition Phasuk also expresses his loyalty and admiration for the Thai Army - which is extraordinary give the 17 previous coups and massacres they'd been directly involved in, and never mind the massacre at Tak Bai the Thai Army had played a huge part in and which had occurred only two years earlier.

The cable states that Phasuk

emphasized that he was close to many officers and, in fact, taught many of them in his capacity as a guest lecturer at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy and the Royal Thai Air Force Academy.  He said that he had always held the military in high regard for their sense of honor and dedication to the country.

Of course none of Phasuk's secret fawning admiration for the Thai military, his obvious politicisation, his abandonment of the rule of law, his support for those attacking democracy and his bogus claims to being "neutral" have ever been questioned by one single member of Bangkok's international media. 

Yet that same media are more than happy to continue quoting Phasuk as though he is some credible, impartial source rather than the pro-coup phoney that he appears to be.

I guess Bangkok's international media corps prefer an easy life to actually pursuing the truth. Penthouse flats, maids and swimming pools to maintain.

We can only speculate on the latter.

BBC News Apologise For Jonathan Head's Abusive Email

As many of my readers know I have been deeply critical of the conduct of the BBC's Bangkok correspondent, Jonathan Head.

I believe, with good grounds, he has acted in an unprofessional fashion, has deliberately misled the British public about what is going on in Thailand and has then hidden this deceit behind highly dubious and dangerous claims of "neutrality". Incredibly he has portrayed the violent fascist protests in Thailand as "friendly", lied about the deaths of children in Bangkok and then blamed the pro-democracy Red Shirts for those deaths without one scintilla of evidence - something which marks Mr Head down as a disgrace to his profession.

To that end he is absolutely perfect as the new President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand.

Back in January I inadvertently sent Mr Head an email when I forgot to remove his name from a very lengthy email list.

I immediately apologised to Mr Head for sending him the email yet was astonished when he responded with what can only be termed an abusive retort (see the screengrab below).

Today I received an apology from the BBC's Deputy Head of Newsgathering, Sara Beck, regarding Mr Head's conduct.

The BBC - whilst seeking £billions from UK taxpayers - have no real process of accountability even if they do send out the occasional apology when their correspondents act unprofessionally.

The Insidious and Dangerous "Neutrality" of Thailand's Foreign Correspondent Club

"When a Western journalist interviews us, however, it is seldom done to render us service. In the war in Algeria, for example, the most liberal-minded French reporters make constant use of ambiguous epithets to portray our struggle. When we reproach them for it, they reply in all sincerity they are being objective. For the colonized subject, objectivity is always directed against him." - Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth

There’s something insidious about Bangkok’s Foreign Correspondent Club Thailand. With its bogus claims of “neutrality/objectivity” and its tacit support of the worst excesses of the Thai establishment it attempts to create a “consensus” of what is “acceptable” and “bonafide” journalism.

The FCCT’s “bonafide” “neutral” journalism, in short, accepted the imprisonment of Thai journalists and activists Somyot Prusakasemsuk and Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul under Thailand’s draconian lese majeste law without so much as raising its voice. This acceptance of one of the most brutal forms of repression in the Thai establishment’s arsenal is, of course, very very far from neutral. It does, in fact, support this repression and sides with the powerful forces that  implement this law’s vicious outcomes. 

Yet, whilst the FCCT’s neutrality is both bogus and ethically suspect its reasoning for doing so is dangerous and actually a direct attack on Thai press and media freedoms.

The reason Somyot and Daranee were abandoned by the FCCT was because they were not considered “bonafide” or “neutral” journalists. They were not considered “neutral” because they held views that were anti-establishment and therefore, according to the FCCT, they were no longer considered “bonafide” journalists.

The FCCT’s faux neutral position is NOTHING to do with journalism or a free press. 

A free press champions a diverse and pluralistic range of opinions, positions and politics.

A free press holds the powerful to account and challenges dominance.

It does not hide behind “neutrality” when press freedoms are threatened in the draconian fashion they are in Thailand. It takes a principled position.

As for “political neutrality” being a requisite for "bonafide journalism" - what on earth does that mean?

One of the greatest journalists and writers of the 20th Century, George Orwell, was very far from “politically neutral” and took up weapons to fight the fascists in Spain.

If Orwell was working in Thailand today and had the misfortune of being imprisoned the “neutral” journalists of the FCCT would abandon him to his fate and, no doubt, claim Mr Orwell wasn’t “bonafide” because he dared to express his political convictions.

According to the FCCT holding and expressing a political view means you are no longer a “bonafide” journalist and, therefore, the establishment is free to do what it wants with you.  

And it gets worse. These days the journalists and members of the FCCT spend their time attacking those bloggers, writers and commentators who suggest that the Thai establishment be held to account. Well-known FCCT members, right up to the executive, have openly embraced expat racists connected to the Thai Army on social media, refusing, point-blank to condemn activities which have included stalking family members of non-FCCT "approved" journalists and commentators. 

The campaign of intimidation and harassment that FCCT members engage in on social media against dissenting voices and the closing down of the debate to a narrow set of “approved” and “bonafide” views shows how little the members and the executive of the FCCT understand what freedom of expression actually means.

There is no pluralism or alternative at the FCCT. There is only “neutrality” which, in the face of some of the worst censorship laws on earth, can only ever be taken as connivance.

Asia Provocateur on the Keiser Report

I was invited onto RT's Keiser Report this week to talk about the protests in Thailand.

Watch the following video from about 12mins 45secs to see me. 

Terror, Human Shields, Lies and the BBC

Most people who read this blog or follow me on other social media know that I make my sympathy for Thailand's Red Shirt explicit. I believe that the Red Shirts represent, in the broadest terms, a movement committed to democracy and political rights for all Thais.

What I have no sympathy for whatsoever are acts of terrorism - and the attacks on the PDRC rallies which resulted in the deaths of several children can only be defined as such. 

Thai children on the barricades at a PDRC rally

Regardless of their political affiliation I hope the perpetrators of these vicious acts are arrested and thrown into prison for a very very long time. To equivocate about this reveals no commitment to any kind of progressive or democratic values whatsoever. Firing semi-automatic weapons or grenades into areas where there are unarmed civilians is the kind of thing we've come to expect from Abhisit, Suthep and the Thai Army, not the Red Shirts - one reason why my mind is still very much open as to who committed these acts of terror.

After the terrorist attacks at Ratchaprasong yesterday I tweeted that the PDRC have been using children and families as human shields. I re-emphasised this by stating that the PDRC are using children and families as human shields as a systematic policy. I stand by this.

I was very quickly condemned for tweeting these comments and was accused by persons clearly supportive of the PDRC of colluding with the murder of children. 

Yet it is abundantly clear the PDRC have deliberately and systematically used families and children as "cover" for their rallies, creating events that would attract families into these rallies, wherein the PDRC leaders then engage in routine and repeated hate speech and calls to violence. 

Violent often drunk PDRC guards also patrol the barricades and fringes of these rallies and extort, beat, attack and even torture those whom they deem deserve such treatment. 

After engaging in such actions these "guards" then disappear back into the "family friendly" areas, knowing that the authorities will not risk a fire fight near so many unarmed families and children that may result from pursuing the "guards".

There are literally 100s of photos of children at PDRC protests. There have been images of the children adorned in PDRC regalia sat on the barricades, images of children who've obviously been in the frontline of the protests dealing with the after effects of tear gas, images of children seemingly acting as "close protection" for noted Thai fascist, Suthep Thuagsuban and even video clips of very young Thai children dressed in PDRC garb singing fascist fighting songs.

There is no doubt at all that the PDRC have placed children at the centre of their political struggle. Given Suthep's noted recklessness regarding human life - in 2010 he said that children and Red Shirts who died after troops he'd ordered onto Bangkok's street shot them had "run into the bullets" - I think it is reasonable to assume he has no problem with this. After all Suthep can always run back to one of his luxury hotels when the bullets start flying.

Yesterday UNICEF brought a blast of reason into this terrible series of events and demanded that ALL children be forbidden from attending the PDRC rallies. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Violent fascist rallies are no place for kids - only a dangerous and reckless idiot would think otherwise.

And only someone who is as morally and ethically bankrupt as those terrorists who attacked the PDRC would deny that the PDRC are deliberately placing kids and families in harm's way. 

And for some reason the BBC's Jonathan Head decided to propagate a lie yesterday and claimed, completely falsely, that the children killed at Ratchaprasong were not attending the protest. 

Why he did this - why he failed to do even the most basic work of a journalist and report the facts, however uncomfortable those facts may be - is a question I've asked him but he's refused to answer. Head is shaping up to be a perfect President for the obsequious FCCT.

Let's look at the facts. There's no doubt that the children who died at Ratchaprasong were dressed in PDRC garb and were also behind the rally barricades when they died. There are numerous video clips and photographs that proves that beyond all reasonable doubt (sorry, but I'm not sharing clips of dead children here - you can search and find them yourself).

Yes, to some it may be distasteful to point these facts out. Those same people may also question these facts' relevance to a terrorist attack. 

There may be some basis to that distaste - I understand why someone might find it difficult to read such truths after such a tragedy.

But surely knowingly lying about these tragic events is far far worse.

Those commenting on and analysing Thailand's present crisis must aim for truths however uncomfortable they are. 

There is no place for children at the PDRC rallies. They are not "family friendly" places, there are no "family zones" and to claim these vicious, violent rallies are anything other than fascist hate festivals is a disgraceful and disgusting lie. 

It's time to end the falsehoods about the PDRC rallies that are being circulated by Jonathan Head, PDRC supporting-expats and the PDRC leadership themselves.

Like UNICEF have made clear - the PDRC rallies are not child-friendly places.

BBC's Jonathan Head: Now Asking Questions on Behalf of Thai Fascists.

UPDATE 2: BBC News in London apologised for Jonathan Head's abusive email to me - read the account of that here http://asiaprovocateur.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/bbc-news-apologise-for-jonathan-heads.html

UPDATE 1: After blogging this article Jonathan Head has just me an abusive email from his BBC email account. The matter has been passed to the BBC complaints team.


I've written previously about the BBC's Bangkok Correspondent, Jonathan Head's, seeming soft-pedalling on the violent antidemocratic, fascist protesters that are occupying the Thai capital's streets.

Head has previously tweeted he was "hugged" by one of the fascist supporters and then tried to wriggle off by claiming it was an old lady. Maybe Head doesn't realise old ladies can support fascism as well? 

Korn Chatikavanij and Thai fascist leader, Abhisit, on stage at a fascist rally in Bangkok.

Head has also called the violent protesters "friendly" and "colourful" and has refused, point blank, to even acknowledge that some of Thailand's most prominent academics and political scientists have termed the protesters "fascist". In fact, when questioned on why he didn't refer to the protesters as fascists, Head gave the kind of sneering rebuke that only a privately and Cambridge educated privileged Englishman is able to deliver.

Yet, today, after an interaction on twitter with representatives of Thai fascist leader, Korn Chatikavanij, it seems as though Head has lost his head.

@TeamKorn is the well-known twitter account of one Jirayu "Joey" Tulyanond, a close associate of former Finance Minister Korn. Joey also owns a luxury boutique hotel just outside central Bangkok that he seemingly uses as a "gift" to journalists who stay on-side with his political line. I exposed former Time magazine's Bangkok correspondent, Robert Horn, for very likely taking this "gift" from Joey. @TeamKorn and Joey also have the honour of launching a vicious smear attack on the dead political prisoner, the elderly and infirm Ah Kong AKA "Uncle SMS" - but Head wouldn't bother to research stuff like that as he's a very important "journalist".

After Head tweeted his intention to interview someone from the government Joey tweeted this comment - 

"@teamkorn  Did anyone see this news in other sources? Thailand National Rice Policy Committee Terminates Rice Mortgage ... http://tmi.me/1dvb8j"

To which Head replied

"@pakhead  @teamkorn Will be interviewing Niwatthanrong this morning so I will ask."

Joey then goes on to thank Head for raising the issue.

Joey and Head's super-chummy exchange on twitter.

To be honest I've never seen a BBC journalist behave in this way. Openly fraternising with fascist supporters is bad enough but to be openly and asking questions on behalf of those close to the fascist leadership? Utterly disgraceful.

Would Head pose questions raised by ordinary Red Shirts of Abhisit or other fascist leaders? Of course not. That would be "biased" and Head has probably only spoken to ordinary Red Shirts on a handful of occasions anyway. Head would, of course, have a natural affinity with the likes of Korn and Abhisit, both of whom attended posh, expensive private English schools just like Head himself. 

It all begs the question - what other Western media in Bangkok have been guests of Joey Tulyanond at his luxury, tropical boutique hotel, Bangkok Tree House?

Human Rights Watch Thailand - confused or lying for Abhisit?

Yesterday the inquest into the death of Italian photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi - which happened during the Bangkok Massacre 2010 - concluded and found that he’d been shot by military bullets fired from positions then occupied by the Thai Army.

The inquest stopped short of actually naming the Thai Army as Fabio’s murderers – something which seems a bit bizarre given that on the balance of probability it clearly points to Thai Army involvement.

The Bangkok Post also published a piece on the inquest’s findings and gave a quote from Human Rights’ Watch Thai researcher and representative, Sunai Phasuk, where he seemed to be defending the Abhisit-led regime which had ordered the troops onto Bangkok’s streets in 2010, actions which ultimately led to Fabio's death.

Sunai is quoted as saying

According to Human Rights Watch's research, there was no order given to shoot unarmed civilians

Yet, strangely, only 12 days earlier on May 17th, Human Rights Watch published a lengthy report entitled Thailand: Deliver Justice for 2010 Political Violence where they state, in paragraph 6

 It is unknown what orders were given by political authorities to the army

 I’ve since written to Sunai and asked him to explain this very obvious contradiction. No doubt he won’t as he is unaccountable and sees no reason to ever explain his actions.

But he has been clearly caught out on this occasion.

So which is it? Is Sunai lying for Abhisit or is he just a bit confused?