Hugging Fascists - The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand's Fake "Neutrality"

In 2011 one of the UK's most respected journalists was in Bangkok on an assignment. During the course of that assignment he happened to visit Bangkok's well-known Foreign Correspondents' Club Thailand (FCCT).

"This place is nothing to do with journalism," he said. "It's just about PR."

The Spanish Civil War got George Orwell. Bangkok 2014 got Jonathan Head.

Fast-forward a couple of years and Thai journalist, political activist and trade unionist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, has just received a lengthy prison sentence for being the editor of a magazine that contained an article which was deemed to make allegorical references to the Thai King which were also deemed to commit the crime of "lese majeste". 

The FCCT made no statement of condemnation regarding Somyot's imprisonment. In fact, well-known FCCT members took to social media and publicly attacked Somyot stating that he is "not a real journalist" because he is "biased" and has "political affiliations". 

Earlier this year (2014) the FCCT made a further statement about "neutrality" with the clear message that the only "journalists" they consider "bonafide" are the ones that meet their "neutrality" test. It's a truly cowardly and pathetic position to adopt that undoes a very noble history of foreign correspondents - e.g. George Orwell in the Spanish Civil War - opposing the kind of fascism and totalitarianism that is very obviously on the march in Thailand. 

In 2014 the FCCT also elected a new President, the BBC's Jonathan Head, a man who breached any ethical guidelines by admitting he "hugged" an activist of the violent Thai fascist PDRC mob and who also asked questions on behalf of fully-paid up members of the fascist-supporting Thai Democrat Party. When I questioned Mr Head about these matters he then sent me abusive and intimidating emails, something for which his bosses at BBC News were forced to apologise for.

And now, after another attack on Nick Nostitz, one of the few foreign journalists in Bangkok willing to speak out against the rise of fascism in Thailand, the FCCT issue a quite extraordinary response claiming that violent attacks by the PDRC have "not been reported". 

Now, let's be clear, and I'll put this in caps THE ONLY REASON THAT THE VIOLENT ATTACKS BY THE PDRC HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED IS BECAUSE BANGKOK'S FOREIGN MEDIA CORPS HAVE IGNORED THEM. 

Their have been literally hundreds of violent attacks by PDRC thugs on ordinary Bangkokians over the last six months. These attacks have included murder, attempted murder, stabbings, beatings, shootings and arson. They've been very WIDELY REPORTED IN THE THAI PRESS. Yet, strangely enough, they've received scant attention from the Thai English-language press, the foreign media corps in Bangkok and the English blogging and social media community. I've picked up on a few but it gets to feeling like you're banging your head on a brick wall when, as a single lonely blogger, you report this stuff and then get routinely accused of "bias" by the same FCCT members who are now lamenting the "under-reporting" of these violent attacks.

Look, FCCT lackeys, this is simple, read  Martin Niemöller's very famous and well-known "First They Came... " quotation, which I've re-edited into a Bangkok foreign correspondent version below... 

"First they came for the Red Shirts, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Red Shirt.

Then they came for lese majeste victim's Somyot and Da Torpedo, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a lese majeste victim (and wanted to keep my media visa)

Then they came for a poor, "uneducated" Thai voter, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a poor, "uneducated" Thai voter (they make for very good maids though).

Then they came for me - and there was no-one left to speak for me."

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. 

Evidence Emerges of Thai Fascists, the PDRC, Threatening Thai Universities

A letter supposedly sent by Thai fascist organisation, the "Democrat" Party-linked PDRC, has emerged that demands Thai university management only display pro-PDRC banners and engage in pro-PDRC activity.

The copy of the letter I have received is addressed to the Deputy Dean of the Engineering Faculty at Bangkok's prestigious Chulalongkorn University.

Thai fascist leader Abhisit Vejjajiva rating at a Bangkok rally

Whilst there is no explicit threat in the letter there is certainly an implied one as the PDRC exhorts the university to act in defence of "King, nation and religion" in order to support the unseating of Thailand's democratically-mandated, legally-constituted and popular Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

It is also clear that the PDRC are now intent on smearing the pro-democracy movement via false claims that the UDD leadership is "anti-monarchy" - similar claims have been used previously by Thai fascist movements to rationalise bloody massacres of pro-democracy activists.

The PDRC now seem determined to pressure - with implied threats if necessary - even Thai universities to follow their aggressive anti-democracy platform. 

A rough translation of the letter follows whilst a pdf copy of the original letter is at the bottom on this post.

To Deputy Dean of Engineering Faculty 

PDRC will hold rally on the day that the CC will hand down the verdict to remove YL in order to express our will that we want the neutral govt to resolve the conflicts in Thailand, topple taksin regime and reform the country before election.

It is necessary for PDRC to ask for cooperation from your university to get the students to join our rally in order to show pure power without backing of any political side. We ask you to follow these requests:

1. Use all kind of university’s media to make people love and uphold the nation, religion and the King as well as advertise the PDRC movement that we fight for these three pillars of the country - and we are especially opposed to the anti-monarchy movement.

2. Set up the unit to distribute UDD leadership’s anti-monarchy speech in order to destroy legitimacy of UDD and supporters of caretaker govt.

3. Invite students, lecturers and workers who are under your command to join PDRC movement by telling them that this is being done to protect the nation, religion and the King as well as opposing  corruption in the caretaker govt.

4. Put up the banners supporting PDRC inside your university and only advertise PDRC’s news.

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.

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?

Gone Missing – the failures of Western media reporting of the 2013 Thai Crisis

As some of my readers know I’ve long been critical of the Western media’s reporting of the ongoing Thai political crisis. Yesterday I blogged a piece outlining some of the Doublespeak terms usually produced by Abhisit Vejjajiva and the other elements of the “Democrat” Party-led anti-democracy movement. It’s my view that the Western media use some of these terms without investigation, analysis or critique thereby presenting and distributing a codified form of language that gravitates towards a Democrat Party-led narrative on some of the key issues affecting Thailand’s political crisis.

This post is an attempt to further unpack some of the other assumed “neutral” positions of the Western media and also some of the events and news items editorialised out by the journalists and reporters working for the Western media in Bangkok.

As this is just a first draft and I’m quite busy I’ll be adding in weblinks later on that relate to each matter listed here. I should also add that if people have sources that contradict my comments please let me know.

This is about Thaksin versus the Bangkok elites.

Such an oversimplified analysis that fails to take into account decades of political struggle, a pro-democracy movement stretching back to the 1930s and its subsequent brutal suppression supported, almost without equivocation, by the USA and other foreign governments. Thaksin’s rise is a very recent phenomena yet the ever-present are the Bangkok elites/networks and their allies in the Thai Army. This simplistic analysis also avoids recognising and evaluating the agency of ordinary Thai people.

This is just about anti-government protesters versus pro-government supporters.

I find this analysis not only simplistic but an insidious use of language that is encoded with a subtext of “resistance” to authority that is not really present in this instance. The better description would be, in my view, anti-democracy agitators or rioters versus pro-democracy activists. Whilst the Red Shirts – the group clumsily termed “pro-government” by the Western media – are broadly supportive of the democratically elected Pheu Thai government and Thaksin Shinawatra that support is very clearly conditional. For example the amnesty bill that supposedly sparked the recent Democrat Party-led riots was widely attacked and derided by the Red Shirts including many of their leading figures.

Yingluck’s 11year old son being harassed by Democrat Partysupporters.

As far as I’m aware not one single Western media source has given this any attention. It’s hard to fathom out why this isn’t newsworthy as it has been widely covered in the Thai language media and confirmed by the school itself. Very poor.

The disappearance of Thai fascist leader Suthep Thagsuban’s past.

Some reports, most notably by the Guardian’s Kate Hodal, appeared to conveniently forget that Suthep has been implicated in several corruption scandals, was disbarred from being an MP and has been charged with the murder of unarmed pro-democracy Red Shirt protesters in 2010. I found it simply astonishing that Hodal wasn’t able to avail herself of the most rudimentary facts regarding Suthep’s past and it appeared that the omission of these prominent facts was an effort to mislead the Guardian’s readership.

Almost complete failure to report very violent night-timeattack on 2nd December by Democrat Party supporters and Thai Blackshirts on Government House.

Our monitoring on that evening seemed to suggest there was not ONE Western journalist during this night-time attack which was possibly the most violent riot instigated by the Democrat Party Blackshirts since the protest began. [After receiving an email from Swedish journalist, Michael Topffer, it transpires he was there during these riots but he also appears to confirm that no other major international media outlet had a presence there - see Addendum below.] Also our monitoring revealed that there was a strong likelihood that Democrat Party activists were on the ground organising the riots. A complete failure by the Western media on this occasion.

That of the 5 reported deaths so far 4 are at the hands of the Democrat’s violent and fascistic Blackshirts and include 3 pro-democracy activists and one completely innocent 17year old burned to death in a bus.

The lack of reporting of this seems wilful and deliberately misleading. It’s simply astonishing the Western media have failed to report this adequately.

In the run up to the riots over the weekend of the 30th November/1^st December  there were a number of well-documented and very violent attacks on single pro-democracy Red Shirt activists by gangs of Democrat Party Blackshirts.

We monitored the reports being put out by the Western media up to the weekend of the 30th November/1^st December and could find no reference to ANY of the attacks by gangs of Democrat Party Blackshirts on pro-democracy activists despite there being more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation by journalists and reporters. These attacks included stabbings, beatings and very sinister cases of vigilantism where Democrat Party fanatics intimidated and threatened ordinary Red Shirts making them strip their clothing off and swear allegiance to certain persons. This is all missing from Western media reports.

The “students” attacking the pro-democracy activists were clearly infiltrated and mobilised by Democrat Party Blackshirt thugs with many of the “students” openly aligning themselves with the Blackshirts.

There was an attempt to portray the “students” as some de-politicised force inadvertently caught up in the protest. That was and is a complete fabrication. 



Addendum 

I received this email from Michael Topffer, a Bangkok-based Swedish reporter. I thought it was important to add his comments. I'll happily add any other response from any other Western journalist is they email me at asiaprovocateur@gmail.com

Hi, I saw your blogpost about failures of Western Media on Thai crisis
If you include Sweden in your view of the Western media I can say this:
Regarding the night of Dec 2nd, I was there, covering this for my paper Expressen. As far as I know, I was the only Western reporter there. BBC was there until around 10pm, I was there until 1am. It was exteremly violent. I gave a live report for our web-tv at 00:30 and had an article about the attack in the next day's paper.
Regarding Suthep's dubious past, I have reported it on many occasions, both for Expressen and for Swedish Public Radio, to which I contribute.
Regarding the whistleblowers at Yingluck's son, there were many conflicting reports as to what had happened, and by the time it was confiremd it was - in my view - already old. Besides, this was just a very small detail. I probably wouldn't have reported it anyway. After all, they were just blowing whistles.
I can't recall ever simplifying the crisis down to claiming that this is about Thaksin vs Elite.
Cheers,
Michael TopfferCorrespondent, ExpressenBangkok

EXCLUSIVE: Suranand Vejjajiva - "No Snap Election".

A former government minister and now the Secretary General to the Prime Minister of Thailand, Suranand Vejjajiva is a well-known political figure who has been close to the machinations of Thai power for over a decade.

Recently I had the chance to conduct an exclusive interview with Suranand on Thailand's present predicament and possible ways out of the crisis. 

I started off by asking him to give a brief outline of the situation right now as he sees it.

 The on-going protests can be divided into three groups, more or less. The first are those who disagreed with the blanket amnesty bill and came out to show their discontent. These dispersed when the government “backed down” and the Senate dropped the bill.  The second group led by the opposition Democrat Party is now trying to capitalize on the large turnout against the blanket amnesty bill and use it as a political tool to topple the government – extending to a call for ousting of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and eliminating the “Thaksin regime.”  The third group is a composition of remnants from the Yellow Shirts who calls for “political reform” through a coup d’tat.  Alliances are being formed and positions negotiated amongst the opposition groups. They are hoping to get another large turnout in order to pressure for change, not necessary in a democratic manner.   

Was it a mistake to attempt a blanket amnesty?

 The intention of the blanket amnesty bill is based on to forgive (but not forget). Many countries with violent political conflicts eventually end up with amnesties as a mechanism to set the country back on track. It is not a mistake but maybe a little too naive and “off” in terms of timing and communicating to the general public.  

 Is the amnesty now dead as a policy? 

The sad part in this episode is the victims of the protests especially people who came out to join the protest rallies and were charged with criminal cases, some still serve time and many have to fight court cases. Time had passed and they should be given amnesty. The government have to find a way to help and relieve them from the burden they did not deserve to take.  

 Is the government considering a snap election? 

No, and the Prime Minister has no intention to resign.  

 Are you surprised that those who were completely silent regarding the amnesty for the 2006 coup leaders are at the head of the protest against this amnesty?  

I am not surprised and always have been disappointed. The 2006 amnesty for coup leaders was not the first time. There have been more than 20 amnesties since Thailand became a democracy in 1932. Most amnesties are for coup leaders, and the people remained silent because the amnesties were usually passed by an appointed legislative body set up by the coup leaders themselves. The current amnesty bill, despite the controversy, was proposed through democratic process via an elected parliament as stipulated by the Constitution. It is embarrassing for Thai political history.   

How real is the threat to Thai democracy right now? Do you think the opposition are committed to democratic means? 

The threat to Thai democracy is always real throughout since 1932. There are groups of elites who believe they are superior and do not believe in the voices of the common man. They allied with the military and businessmen in many occasions to topple democratically elected governments. The opposition [led by Abhisit Vejjajiva, Surnand's cousin] has always been the tool of the elite, and especially more so since they lost the last five elections over past two decades. 

How much does the Pheu Thai party need the Red Shirts right now? 

Pheu Thai and the Red Shirts are inseparable. There may be differences in opinions, but they fought and need to continue the fight for democracy together.   

Critics claim the govt let down their supporters by not reforming laws like lese majeste or not doing enough to free the Red Shirt prisoners - what would you say to them? 

The government has been trying to work to free the Red Shirt political prisoners as hard as possible. Some has been released but many remained, stuck in the judicial maze. The work will need to continue. As for lese majeste, the law remains a sensitive issue in Thailand.   

There's been some talk of the govt bring in the ICC - how likely is this? 

Unlikely. 

Finally, how can the govt achieve a sustainable reconciliation? 

We need to work to create trust between stakeholders and the Prime Minister proposes to use the reform forum initiated by the government as the venue to discuss how the country can move ahead.

Are the Bangkok Post trying to damage Thailand's economy and telling lies about credit ratings?

Over the last few days the Bangkok Post, along with their allies in the Democrat Party, have made a huge deal of Moodys possibly downgrading Thailand's credit rating due to excessive spending on the government-subsidised rice buying scheme. In an editorial entitled "Face the truth on rice scheme" it seems like the Bangkok Post have a pretty tenuous grasp on how facts actually work in the real world. 

But this story is starting to unravel very quickly as it appears that Moodys have denied that there is any chance of Thailand's credit rating being downgraded.

The rating agency are quoted as saying

"Thailand's credit rating is not in danger of being downgraded because of its rice intervention scheme, rating agency Moody's said"

So why are the Bangkok Post putting out barefaced, 100%, stonewall lies about this story? Why is nobody bothering to actually check the facts, do the research and compile the evidence?

And why would the Democrats fly in the face of Thailand's national interests and so gleefully put out falsehoods and rumours that could damage Thailand's credit rating and therefore its economy?

What is astonishing in all this is that Thailand's rice buying subsidy scheme is relatively small if the total loss figures of roughly US$2billion match the governments expectations. In the EU for example farm subsidies top US$75billion whilst in Korea, Switzerland, Japan and Norway up to 60% of all agricultural earnings come via government subsidy. 

There's nothing that strange about agricultural subsidies. And the rice buying scheme was put to the electorate in the 2011 general election and they clearly voted to back this policy.

The democracy deficit of the Thai Democrats and the Bangkok Post is only matched by their truth deficit.

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?