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." 

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

Abhisit Vejjajiva - proving once again he leads the political wing of the Thai Army

Abhisit Vejjajiva recently gave a rambling, bizarre interview to the Bangkok Post. His interviewer, the incomprehensible arch-Democrat Party stooge, Voranai Vanijaka - a writer who opined during the violence of 2010 that "this rebellion" must be put "crushed" and who has voiced support for Thailand's lese majeste laws - fails to ask too much of his hero and fails to question Abhisit's obvious lies, mis-truths and obfuscations. If you read the interview you would think Abhisit wasn't even in Bangkok when he gave the orders for the Thai Army to open fire on unarmed civilians, such is his abdication of any kind of responsibility. 

But the pick of the bunch of Abhisit's very obvious lies was this 

The military has always acted according to the rulings of the court and under the constitution, just as they did in all actions carried out in 2010.

 Does Abhisit take everyone for idiots? Has he forgotten that the Thai Army has engaged in several massacres over the years, that they've done so with complete impunity, that they've abrogated constitution after constitution and expelled Thailand's democratically chosen leaders via illegal coup d'etats time after time? Has he also forgotten the big pile of dead Thai civilians in 2010, including unarmed women, children and medical staff like Nurse Kade, most of whom were almost certainly shot by the Thai Army, and all entirely innocent? 

Maybe Abhisit lives on a different planet to the rest of us. Maybe he has become so confused and bewildered by his own concoction of lies that he no longer has any meaningful grip of reality. And maybe stooge journalists like Voranai and the rag he writes for - the Democrat Party/Abhisit-family-linked Bangkok Post - are still bewitched by the fading good looks of the Butcher of Bangkok and the tales he tells. 

Luckily the Thai people have enough good sense to see through Abhisit's lies. That's why they will continue to reject him and his party at the ballot box no matter how much PR Voranai and the Bangkok Post engage in. 

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. 

Letting the snipers and dogs loose, Democrat Party style

An air of desperation seems to be creeping into the Democrat Party leadership of late.

Not only are Abhisit and Suthep facing a possible criminal investigation regarding the death of an unarmed Red Shirt taxi driver in 2010, it's also been revealed, once again, that their brutality is matched only by their incompetence.

Amid looney accusations from Democrat Party deputy leader, Korn, that Yingluck's government is like "Hitler" and off the back of this weekend's Pitak Siam protest debacle, when protesters drove trucks into police lines and threw tear gas, Abhisit's party is foolishly attempting to take some kind of moral high ground.

However, no-one is fooled by the Democrat's silly posturing. Least of all a group of elderly peaceful cassava farmers who had the temerity to protest against the then Chuan Leekpai Democrat Party-led government on October 27th 1999. Back then the Democrats sent these farmers a message they'd never forget - they set a pack of German Shepherds on them.

Of course the Abhisit regime's appalling and brutal handling of protesters in 2010 overshadows this event by some margin. In 2010 the Democrat Party set the snipers loose and shot unarmed civilians just like 17year Samaphan "Cher" Srithep in the video below, who was left to bleed to death on a Bangkok street.

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