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." 

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'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?

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.

Why did Human Rights Watch in Thailand pass my details to the US authorities?

Back in 2011 I had preview access to an as yet unreleased Wikileaks cable that included reference to a Human Rights Watch staff member making possible lese majeste comments.

At that time I had been critical of a number of things HRW had done, including Brad Adams' appalling claims at a meeting at the UK Parliament, but felt I was still sympathetic to their work in Thailand. I therefore privately warned Human Rights Watch about this matter as I felt it may leave their staff member open to possible legal threat.

What I also discovered in that cable was that Human Rights Watch made a statement that indicated they had refused to defend Thai trade unionist, Jittra Kotchadet, against lese majeste charges.

Screen grab of email from HRW admitting they passed my details to US Embassy

Whilst making it very clear that I would not be making any of the contents of the cable public - something that I never did with Wikileaks themselves putting all the cables in the public domain later in 2011 - I asked HRW to explain why they were adopting a public stance of condemning lese majeste but then taking another position in secret.

Despite several emails and phone calls to HRW staff members they never responded and never clarified the discrepancy between their public and private positions.

I was then astonished to find, several months later, that my questions to HRW regarding lese majeste were being circulated by a Bangkok Post journalist after they had received information from a US Embassy staffer that basically amounted to a smear campaign against me.

I contacted HRW's head office in the USA and asked them to explain. In response I received an accusatory, aggressive and threatening phone call from HRW's rather unpleasant legal advisor, Dinah Pokempnor.

Yet even Ms Pokempnor knew I had caught HRW and she sent me a mealy-mouthed and quite pathetic excuse as to why HRW breached all the rules of confidentiality and passed my details to the US Embassy.

Upon being notified by you that unredacted US Embassy cables leaked to Wikileaks mentioned one of our researchers, we contacted the  embassy to ask if we could ascertain the contents of these cables. The embassy asked us how we knew that there were such cables, and we told them you had alerted us.  

 Anyone coming into contact with HRW people in Bangkok, staff members such as Sunai Phasuk, Brad Adams or Phil Robertson,  should be warned - they cannot be trusted and may pass on your details to state agencies and other authorities with links to the Thai military without your knowledge or your permission. 

Abhisit at UK Parliament: Is Korn lying again?

Thailand's former Finance Minister Korn announced today on his Facebook page that both him and former Thai PM, Abhisit Vejjajiva - who was just been charged with the murder of taxi driver Phan Khamkong, during protests in 2010 - have been invited by the UK Parliament to speak about a reputable UK-based children's charity this coming Monday, 10th December.

As it is the weekend it's hard to fully confirm whether this event is taking place or not but I've been unable to find any mention of it on either the UK Parliament's own website or that of the children's charity concerned.

I did however manage to speak to my own parliamentary contacts today and they seemed to think it would be simply incredible for Abhisit to be let anywhere near the UK's lawmaking body given his recent murder charge. So one has to wonder if Korn is just making stuff up in order to bolster Abhisit's appalling public image. Obviously if Korn has lied - and I'll be speaking to the UK Parliament's press office on Monday to confirm the situation - this will only humiliate him and Abhisit further.

Shocking footage of 17yr old Thai student, Samaphan "Cher" Srithep, after being shot by Thai Army in 2010

What is also extraordinary is that Abhisit, a man who sent Thai Army snipers onto Bangkok's streets in 2010 to shoot young people and children, would use a reputable children's charity to promote himself.

Take the case of 14year old Kunakorn "Isa" Srisuwan who was shot on May 15th 2010 in central Bangkok during the bloody and brutal crackdown ordered by former PM Abhisit when pro-democracy protests were being held after his party were installed in power via court and army chicanery in 2008. Kunakorn was shot and killed by the Thai Army during the same incident which killed Phan Khamkong, the taxi driver whose murder Abhisit is being prosecuted for. 

I've posted the case of 17yr old Thai student, Samaphan "Cher" Srithep before. He was left to bleed to death on a Bangkok street after being shot, in the head, by Abhisit's Thai Army snipers. His sister's moving  account of  her brother's death should be read out to every board member of the Thai Children's Trust.

Today he was impertinent enough to go into the danger zone. Someone in there was cruel enough to shoot him until he fell. The blood from his head left a long trail. I guess he didn’t die immediately. He must have suffered immense pain. I don’t know what it feels like for a body to still be breathing, for the pulse to still be racing, while your head lies smashed on the pavement like a watermelon dropped from a great height.  

He laid there for almost an hour before the rescue people managed to bring out that faintly breathing body. The soldiers would not let anyone go in to help him. They shot everyone who tried to do so. One of the rescue people nearly got shot in the arm. 

The doctor said he died at the hospital. That shocked me and made me cry. It meant that for an unbearably long time Cher must have been aware that it was his own head lying on the pavement like a smashed watermelon. 

Bangkok's foreign media and the re-distribution of the Bangkok Post's lies

UPDATE: Zoe Daniel has accused me of committing defamation with this blog post and is threatening to sue me. Just to be clear I am not accusing Ms. Daniel of lying, nor suggesting she has lied in her reports. I can see why she might think the orginal title of my blog may convey that so have amended it, accordingly.  I stand by assertion that members of Bangkok's foreign media corps have almost certainly lied and continue to do so in regards to the cover-up that is being perpetuated for the Bangkok Massacre in 2010. I also don't know why Zoe can't just answer my question and, instead, reverts to false accusations of rudeness and an hysterical over-reaction with threats to sue. Would it be reasonable to ask Ms.Daniel if she has something to hide?

Had a very revealing twitter exchange with ABC’s (Australian Broadcast Company) Bangkok correspondent Zoe Daniels aka @seacorro this morning (see below).

To be fair Zoe is not the worst of Bangkok’s toadying international media corps but, like most of them, does seem to overly rely on obvious Yellow-tinged English language sources such as the Bangkok Post and seems a bit in hock to those charming Democrat Party people who lunch at the FCCT. (What's also odd is so few of these long-term foreign correspondents ever quote or translate a Thai newspaper source - they're often more balanced and certainly offer a much broader view than the Post or the Nation -  I'm just a blogger and I can cite Thai news, so why can't the well-paid/resourced international media?)

Yesterday, after violent far-right Yellow Shirt extremists were caught on camera attacking a peaceful gathering of Red Shirts, the Bangkok Post ran a short piece with some photographs. It contained a couple of lines from “reporters” (AKA as liars) who decided, in true Bangkok Post style, to make some stuff up about what had happened there.

 Zoe, usually a reliable source, decided to tweet a link to this Bangkok Post article but failed to point out that the Post is controlled by the Democrat Party and is sympathetic to the Yellow Shirts. Zoe could’ve tweeted links to other sources that offered an alternative view to the Bangkok Post but didn’t. 

 Given that almost every single Thai language newspaper blamed the Yellow Shirts for starting the violence, something backed up by this video clip which shows a Yellow Shirt guard trying to calm down his own activists as they start the violence, and this report which states that at least one Yellow Shirt was armed with a pistol, it’s my view that Zoe, by only offering the Bangkok Post’s version, was not giving a balanced, truthful or fair representation of what occurred yesterday.

So I decided to ask Zoe directly what happened. My questions were direct and to the point. In the end Zoe, instead of answering any of my questions, accused me of being “uncivil”, “rude” and “antagonistic” and then blocked me. I don’t believe I was any of those things and can only conclude she’d been “caught out” and didn’t have an explanation.

It’s my view that the foreign media in Bangkok still have some very serious questions to answer about how they've portrayed events over the last few years. It’s also my view that many of them have knowingly lied about what happened during the Bangkok Massacre in 2010 and have been unwavering in their support for the Democrat Party and the Thai elites. 

They portray one very obviously partial version of events as neutral and consider any alternative to be biased. They very clearly don’t like being questioned on this and routinely seek to personally denigrate and exclude anyone who dares to criticise them. They stand accused of being complicit with a cover-up of crimes against humanity and the journalists/media who realise this is happening but say nothing are equally as bad. It is a collective failure for which they have collective responsibility. 

I didn't really want to single Zoe out and, as suggested above, don't think she is the worst, but the twitter exchange below is instructive in that it reveals the mindset of your typical Bangkok foreign correspondent. They struggle when it comes to their being questioned on anything.  No wonder Zoe ended up blocking me - I had her in a corner and it was obvious flight was better than answering me.

"Me to @seacorro am curious if you consider the Bangkok Post a reliable news source.

‪Zoe to @andrewspoooner I'm skeptical of most sources except my own eyes

‪ Me to @seacorro So the jury system should be trashed and investigations are pointless then? I mean they don't witness anything firsthand.

Me to @seacorro Once again > Are the BKK Post a reliable source? I would say v obviously not. Does ur skepticism stop with them?

Zoe to @andrewspoooner Andrew. don't pick a fight with me for no reason, thanks.

Me to @seacorro A direct question is not a fight unless you feel defensive. You cite BKK Post as a source. Surely you must think they are credible

Zoe to @andrewspooner No, I linked to photographs on the Post website, those who read the article can make their own decisions. Goodbye

Me to @seacorro That wasn't just photographs but a report as well. The BKK Post are not "neutral" in anyway and shouldn't be portrayed as such

Me to @seacorro I get this sense that BKK international media corps really don't like be questioned. They get overly defensive. Can't think why.

Me to @seacorro And, as I said, why are you guys so defensive and evasive when asked difficult questions? You have a responsibility.

Zoe to @andrewspoooner Because you are rude and antagonistic. Unnecessary for civil discussion."

Anyone can follow my lively twitter discussions here at @andrewspoooner