Thailand's Thaksin seeks business in Liberia

Fri Apr 24, 2009

* Former Thai PM in Liberia, seeking business

* Looking into mining, agriculture and gas

* Liberia says wants him to invest, create jobs

MONROVIA, April 24 (Reuters) - Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, living in self-imposed exile and facing two years jail at home on conflict of interest charges, was in Liberia this week scouting for business opportunities in Africa.

Thaksin, also briefly owner of Manchester City football club, has seen his living options reduced after Britain revoked his visa and the Thai government recently sought extradition agreements with Dubai and Hong Kong, where he has been living.

Although rich in iron ore, timber, diamonds and gold, Liberia, which was founded by freed slaves from the United States in the 19th century, is not an obvious choice as it still battles to overcome the effects of years of war that only ended in 2003.

"I have come to visit Liberia to explore business opportunities in the areas of mining, agriculture and gas exploration," Thaksin told journalists after meeting the West African country's vice president earlier this week. Continued...

I prefer to do business in Liberia because of the good business climate and the move by the country in reconstruction process," he said late on Tuesday evening.

Liberia was embroiled in almost constant conflict from 1990-2003, with some 250,000 people killed in its civil war and an intertwined conflict in neighbouring Sierra Leone, which has resulted in Liberia's former President Charles Taylor facing charges of war crimes.

Investor confidence in the country was boosted by the 2005 election of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a former World Bank official who became Africa's first female head of state.

Embargos imposed during the war on timber and diamond exports have since been lifted, encouraging private investment. But the country is still highly dependent on aid and is struggling to tackle corruption.

"In the not too distant future, we will send a team to carry out feasibility studies on what would be a priority for us. We can begin with even a million dollars, depending on what we discover," Thaksin said.

The former prime minister's supporters back home have been embroiled in weeks of violent protests with the authorities in Bangkok although the current prime minister ended a 12-day state of emergency on Friday and sought to heal deep political rifts.

Thaksin spent two days in Liberia before leaving but the government made clear he would be welcome back.

"We want you to come and do business that will help create jobs for Liberians. We have a good business climate in Liberia," Vice President Joseph Boakai said. (Writing by David Lewis; Editing by Charles Dick)

See

ทักษิณแห่งประเทศไทย และการทำธุรกิจในไลบีเรีย

Can Thailand Avoid the Abyss?

April 21, 2009

The hate campaign in Thailand, which started in 2005 and intensified in 2008, has been successful and has polarized the Thai society to an unprecedented degree. It is time to reset Thailand's domestic politics before it is too late.

It was frightening then to notice that the themes and the words used were similar to the ones used in Rwanda, which led to genocide in that country 15 years ago.

The success of the hate campaign owed much to the round-the-clock live television, broadcasting and reaffirming hate messages.

This was supplemented by demonstrations and rallies, including the occupation of Government House and the closure of international airports by demonstrators wearing yellow

shirts, members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), determined to bring down several elected governments. The PAD has called for a parliament to be dominated by appointed, rather than elected members.

These events sent a strong message that illegal acts, detrimental to Thailand's national interest and with the aim of bringing down elected governments, are acceptable in Thailand. The military did not react to enforce the law against the "Yellow Shirts".

Earlier this month, following the examples set by the "Yellow Shirts", an opposing group of people, members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), wearing red

shirts, took to the streets to demand a return of full democracy to Thailand. A regional summit was abruptly cancelled as a result, and this time, the military reacted swiftly to enforce the law against the "Red Shirts".

Opposing groups in Thailand now see the situation as a "zero sum game," in which if one side wins, the other side loses. With this attitude, there is no possibility of a settlement with mutual gains.

As events developed following the coup, many Thais became convinced that there is a double standard in Thailand in which members of one side can break the law with impunity while members of the other side are subjected to maximum punishment.

Both sides used strong personal attacks on key personalities, resorting to emotional accusations. In this way, action leads to reaction, escalating into violence. The situation is grim, and there is real potential for things to get worse, leading Thais into the abyss together.

How can we put an end to this escalation of conflict? The only way out that I can see is to borrow the words of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as she met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

On that occasion, mindful of deteriorating relations between Russia and the United States, she said, "Let us press the reset button." I now say, it is time to press the reset button for Thailand.

A fresh start for Thailand is needed urgently. This means nothing less than the immediate change in assumptions and attitudes for all sides, followed immediately by constructive action. But how?

1. Thais must stop using their time, energy and brain power to attack and destroy one another. Instead, these resources should be used by Thais to jointly find solutions agreeable to all sides through constructive negotiation and dialogue.

This means all sides must stop seeing the situation as a "zero sum game." Attitudes must change to enable all sides to see that a "positive sum game" or a "win-win" situation is possible, one in which all sides, by working together, can gain together and save the kingdom.

2. Thais must separate the people from the problem -- and stop trying to find creative ways to destroy one another. We must resist the temptation to act against someone on the basis of assumptions based on rumors or unverified accusations.

Personal attacks only lead to counter personal attacks and the hardening of opposite positions. This must end.

3. Instead of declaring positions and thinking that we cannot back down from the declared positions without losing face, let us focus on our underlying interests and work together to find common ground. We are all Thais. We have lived happily together for over 800 years. There is no reason why we cannot work together now.

4. All Thais must have good reasons to be convinced that there is no double standard in Thailand. Due process of law must apply to all Thais, regardless of which side the person may

be perceived to be from. All Thais, whether they are rich or poor, whether they are from Bangkok or from the rural areas, must be made to feel that they are all Thai citizens, with equal rights under the same law. This includes voting rights.

5. We should avoid the retroactive application of laws which take away people's rights, such as the one by which if one executive of a political party is found guilty of violating election law, the entire political party can be disbanded and all party executives lose their rights to

vote in local and national elections and are prohibited from holding political positions for 5 years. In addition, the principle of proportionality should be applied when punishments are handed down by the courts.

6. We must stop debating whether or not there is a double standard in Thailand from the 2006 coup d'etat, until now. Debates on this point are counterproductive, since they can only help entrench the polarized positions of each side.

Except for very serious crimes of which the evidence is clear, the fact that a significant part of the Thai society feels that there is a double standard is enough to trigger amnesty across the political board.

7. Controversial provisions of the 2007 constitution must be revised to be more consistent with democracy.

8. The results of our next elections must be respected. All political parties have ample time to design effective strategies to win elections. Resorting to illegal means to reverse election results must not be condoned.

I want to see the day when all Thais can walk proudly together, wearing whatever color shirts we like, uniting together in a just society and working together to enable the kingdom to succeed with flying colors under globalization.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has often emphasized that he is determined to bring about reconciliation by the promotion of justice, democracy and political reform, including the amendment of the constitution.

He said that he would invite all parties concerned to discuss ways for the country to move forward. The formation of a truly impartial and independent body, acceptable to all parties

concerned, to help with the reconciliation process, would be helpful. It is now time to Reset Thailand by translating those noble words into concrete actions.
The Huffington Post

Dr. Kantathi Suphamongkhon
ประเทศไทยจะเลี่ยงจากการจมปลักได้หรือไม่

BBC, Raid?

May. 02 2009
2bangkok.com reported a few days ago "A source informs us that the Special Branch police are at this moment raiding BBC offices in Bangkok, looking for evidence against Jakrapob".

BP: Having checked with a few sources* who are familiar with what went on, BP feels confident to say there was a visit by the police to request information about Jakrapob (the BBC and a number of foreign journalists had interviewed Jakrapob a few days earlier).

It was not a raid and there was no search warrant. It was simply a couple of cops who showed up wanting the BBC interview with Jakrapob and information about Jakrapob.

It was not clear to those present exactly what information the two coppers wanted. They went away empty-handed and were told to send a written request.

The amusing thing is that it was not long that those in the PM's Office became aware of what happened, but it seems they couldn't get any information from the

coppers directly so they sent a senior police officer from the local police station to the BBC to ask what they first group of coopers wanted.

Am unable to find it confirm, but a Democrat spokesman has issued a statement where the government denies approving the "raid".

They have been frantically trying to clean up the mess and find out who sent the first group of coppers.

However, the government may want to reflect on the message is it sending to government officers about the foreign media acting as though they serve Thaksin before being surprised about how the coppers act.

*Unfortuntately BP can't name them, but as this post does slightly defend the government, BP doubts anyone thinks this blog is on Abhisit's payroll. The sources have provided information which have proved accurate before.

Bangkok Pundith BBC ถูกบุกหรือ?

'land of smiles' becomes land of lies

Thailand, sad to say, is in a terrible mess. With the very future of the monarchy at risk the stakes could not be higher. The country is deeply polarised with goodwill, moral authority and the truth itself in desperately short supply. Thailand could be heading for a very hard landing

One side is led by Thaksin Shinawatra. The former telecoms billionaire and deposed prime minister is a dubious champion of democracy. During his six years in power Mr Thaksin launched a "war on drugs" in which up to 2,000 alleged dealers were summarily executed by the police.

In government he was dogged by corruption allegations, apparently unable to distinguish his own business interests from those of the country. He was no friend of the free media, although censorship is worse now than it was in Thaksin's day.

On the other side is... who? Mr Thaksin has many vehement enemies among the middle and upper classes. It is difficult to tell how many because in Thailand opinion pollsters never ask the only question that really counts – who would you vote for?

They particularly object to Thaksin's alleged corruption and his government's challenge to Thailand's rigid social hierarchy.

Qualms over the deadly "war on drugs", on the other hand, are mostly limited to hand-wringing foreign liberals.These well-healed opponents control most major institutions.

They also claim they are acting to "protect the king", and this is where it gets difficult.Strict laws make any criticism of the monarchy punishable with up to 12 years in jail – in practice almost any discussion of the monarchy is prohibited.

Last week a man, the breadwinner for his family, was jailed for 10 years for posting "insulting" pictures of the royal family online.King Bhumibol, 81, is "above politics" and he is widely and sincerely loved.

Many Thais credit him with steering their country's modern development and intervening to solve periodic crises. The country's official doctrine of "sufficiency economics" is the king's own invention.When politicians claim to act in the king's name they often accuse their opponents of disloyalty, potentially punishable by 12 years in jail.

That can make politics very hard to talk about. Bhumibol, for his part, has been mostly silent.In 2006 Mr Thaksin was accused of disloyalty to the king and overthrown by a military coup.

Nevertheless, with Thaksin in exile, voters returned his supporters to power in elections at the end of 2007.Mr Thaksin's one great virtue as a democrat is that he and his supporters have won each of three elections so far this decade.

He is popular because for the first time in Thai history he campaigned on policies aimed at the rural majority – and then delivered. He earned massive admiration for schemes such as affordable health care.The pro-Thaksin government elected after the coup lasted less than a year.

Protesters, some of them armed with golf clubs, bombs and guns, overran first Government House and then both Bangkok's airports, costing the economy untold millions. They wore the royal colour, yellow, and claimed they were acting to protect the king from Thaksin's alleged republicanism.

The movement received the public endorsement of the queen.The People's Alliance for Democracy, as the movement is misleadingly called, argued that democracy does not work in Thailand because the peasantry are too simple to vote.

They want a "new politics" in which 70 per cent of parliament is appointed.Last year's protests found widespread support among the conservative media which, in its rush to finish the Thaksinites for ever, abandoned factual reporting.Thaksin denies that he is a republican, although some of his supporters undoubtedly are – or they are now.

At the end of last year a court dissolved the elected government and the army brasssummoned political bosses to hoist a new prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, to power. The leaders of the airport protests were never punished – one even became foreign minister.

Now Thaksin has dropped his bomb. In live video addresses to rallies around the country he identified two retired generals who are close advisers to the king and a small group of top judges as the conspirators who plotted his 2006 ousting and have allegedly been invisibly pulling Thailand's strings ever since.The government is in a funk, panicking about how to block the transmissions.

The army is said to be furious: Thaksin has broken the omerta and the government could not stop him. Commentators say he has gone too far and newspapers are openly demanding censorship to stop the revelations being heard.

Yet although the people Thaksin named have offered desultory denials, no one is seriously disputing the truth of his revelations. Apparently that it is not the point – in Thai politics the truth is not meant for public consumption.

Thailand aspires to be a serious country, a Western ally and a destination for tourists and investment, yet in the past few years the "land of smiles" has been more like the land of lies. A light cast on what takes place in the comfortable sitting rooms of power is long overdue.

Telegraph
เมืองยิ้มกลายเป็นเมืองแห่งการหลอกลวง

Is Thailand headed for civil war?

Is Thailand spiraling downward toward civil war? This is an issue that exiled Thai professor Giles Ungpakorn – now ensconced in his U.K. home surrounded by free-thinking academia – has previously addressed.He has been joined in his concern by those on both sides of the yes-no fence.


The Marxist professor fled Thailand last month just before he was scheduled to appear at Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation to respond to allegations of having committed lèse majesté.

His recent statement – in which he called on the king to “honor his constitutional role and stop intervening in politics” – has been perceived as a threat to national security.
There is now a concerted campaign in the country to quash discussion of any ties between the revered royal family and political intrigue.


Civil wars are not always easy to define, however, much less predict. Stanford University Professor James Fearon, with credentials from Harvard and Cornell, defines civil war as “a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center, or in a region, or to change government policies.”

Fearon also co-authored a 2003 paper with fellow academic David D. Latin, "Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War," wherein one of the points put forward was that the key to understanding civil war is to properly define insurgency.

The authors may have been right, especially in Thailand where there currently exist two kinds of insurgency. One is the open militant kind, found in the country’s southern Muslim-dominated region.

The other is a more elusive political insurgency that threatens traditional
power structures and basic value systems that have gained strength over generations, but which themselves lead to conflict among various ethnicities, races and sociopolitical groupings.


When Professor Ungpakorn spoke of civil war in Thailand, he seems to have been addressing the more violent kind, with a large civilian population aided by heavily armed groups able to carry on a credible resistance and offensive against standing armed forces.
Thus, insurgency in Thailand today could be generally characterized as something broiling on several levels and across the board. It could include questions being asked by traditionalists,

by reformists, by academics, by Thais and by foreigners who have not been able to ignore, no matter how they try, the significant changes that have already taken place in Thai society

These changes include:A new readiness to immediately assail public figures, both in words and with limited violence, such as recently occurred with a small cherry bomb tossed at a Thai minister’s car.

The degradation of media coverage, in terms of straight reporting and analysis of events, so that helpful analytical content is left out and replaced with opinions and simplistic “safe” questions.

A distinct discomfort with a society that continues to define itself by tradition and yet attempts to remain tolerant toward those with a legitimate right to say what they say. The

very definition of what it means to be Thai, in fact, has finally come open to question. Are Thais, for example, still Thais if they disagree with the presence of the monarchy? Are they

Thai if they side with foreigners who have a sound argument against reactionary thinking in Thailand?A reluctance to reform agencies and processes that would lead to greater freedom and individual identity among the Thai people.

Royalists, pseudo-royalists and supporters of traditional Thai values have set up various barricades against those pushing for change, ostensibly because they perceive such change as wrongfully destroying legitimate institutions and values.

That these pro-royalists and militant anti-free speech activists have taken such measures as ordering the army to spy on the general public is one indication that reform is not likely to result in real and needed change.

The continued presence of xenophobia when it comes to official actions to protect and preserve Thai values and Thai institutions.

Citations by anti-reformists include the idea that Thais who listen to foreign concepts are being poisoned and misled, or that foreigners themselves are attacking Thai institutions

without understanding those institutions and the importance of protecting them.None of these changes in Thai society – some of which are not changes as much as they are modern reaffirmations – is surprising.

What does and should shock political analysts is the fact that Thailand has resorted to bringing in its armed forces, like “friendly neighboring countries” Burma, Laos, and Cambodia

have done, to spy on citizens to make sure they are not endangering national security.This may be deemed not just a step in the wrong direction, but a step toward civil war against a

population fed up with being fed.At the crux of the current Thai government’s efforts to quash free speech is the fear that offensive ideas may take hold, and if they do, the old way

will have to give way.( Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development.

A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post – www.thekoratpost.com – he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media.

He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology.
©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
UPI Aisa.com
หรือประเทศไทยจะเกิดสงครามกลางเมือง

Thailand: Replace Flawed Rights Panel

MAY 13, 2009
(New York) - The newly appointed members of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, whose selection process violated constitutional requirements and international standards, should resign to restore the commission's credibility, Human Rights Watch said today.

Upcoming constitutional reforms should include a new selection process that will ensure independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation.

The seven new members approved by the Senate on May 1, 2009, in a closed session, include one who was a subject of a commission investigation and several with no experience in human rights. Several highly qualified candidates were rejected.

"Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Instead,

inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules. The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down."

On March 11, the secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) invited applications for new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners had expired.

The commission received 133 applications. The selection committee, consisting of five senior judges and the president of the parliament, met to consider the applications on April 8. On April 10, the committee sent seven nominees, including one who has been the subject of a commission

investigation, to the Senate for consideration and approval. The Senate effectively rubber-stamped the committee's nominees.

The seven nominees were: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting

Assembly of Thailand (2007) and a prominent industrialist; Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitutional Court; Visa Penjamano, inspector-general, Ministry of Social

Development and Human Security; Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubon Ratchathani; and Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

The new commissioners do not come from a diverse range of social backgrounds, nor do any of them represent human rights groups.

More important, local human rights groups have protested that the new commissioners lack necessary first-hand experience in protecting and promoting human rights.

Vanchai, Parinya, Paibool, and Visa, in particular, have no experience at all and have no public record of demonstrating basic understanding of human rights.

In 2007, Parinya was named in a commission investigation as responsible for causing environmental damage in Thailand's northeastern region, where he holds a license to extract salt.

Parinya's lack of commitment to promoting universal human rights was evident in an oral presentation to the Thai Senate in which he dismissed "Western criticisms of Burma" as "foreign

interference" in domestic affairs. In that light, if made a commissioner, he stated that he would not welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand.

Human Rights Watch said that candidates who have solid records in defending human rights were rejected, including: the Muslim activist Angkhana Neelapaijit, from the Working Group on

Justice for Peace, who has spent many years documenting and exposing abuses in the southern border provinces; Wallop Tangkananurak, a prominent child rights defender; and Pairoj Polpetch, who monitors compliance of Thai laws with international human rights standards.

"None of the new human rights commissioners has a reputation for working on human rights," said Adams. "The prominent human rights professionals who applied were ignored, calling into

question whether the commission will be serious or has been set up to serve entrenched interests."

Human Rights Watch said that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed itself to the protection of human rights and to differentiate itself from its recent

predecessors, including the abusive government of Thaksin Shinawatra and the military junta. But neither the government nor the opposition party has made any effort to discuss the need to

ensure the selection of independent and qualified human rights commissioners as part of planned constitutional reforms.

Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the NHRC commissioners should be persons "having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of

the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organizations in the field of human rights."

The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights ("The Paris Principles"), which were adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1993, state that: "The

composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all

necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights." The Paris Principles state

that members of government departments, if included in a national human rights commission, "should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity."

"The commissioners should resign to make it possible for a new selection," said Adams. "To prevent the same mistakes from being made again, the constitution should be amended to establish a selection process that ensures independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation in the selection of NHRC commissioners."

The selection of the previous commission was made under the terms of the 1997 Constitution and was based on the active involvement of representatives of civil society, the media, and other

social sectors, unlike the exclusive panel of judges and one representative of the incumbent party that made the new selections under the military-junta-sponsored constitution of 2007.

This new selection committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted.

In contrast, the nominees to the previous commission were thoroughly examined by the Senate before approval.

There was virtually no attempt in the process used this year to inform the public about what was going on, let alone to allow public scrutiny and debate on the appropriateness of the short-listed candidates.

An online form to leave questions on the Senate website was not available until the afternoon before the cutoff date.

Competence, efficiency, and independence have been the main challenges facing the human rights body from its inception.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin had encouraged government officials and the security forces to disregard investigations and recommendations of the commission concerning state-sanctioned abuses.

These included the 2003 "war on drugs" and extrajudicial tactics used by various police and security units in the context of counterinsurgency in Thailand's southern border provinces. Annual budget allocations for the commission had also been restricted by the government.

Yet some commissioners and staff worked hard to monitor and investigate abuses across Thailand.

Some of their interventions in the southern border provinces saved the lives of victims of arbitrary arrests and torture.

Similarly, they had exposed and stopped a number of government and private projects that severely endangered public safety and the environment across the country.
see ควรเปลียนคณะกรรมการทีมีมลทิน

Opposition Raises Specter of Civil War in ThailandOpposition Raises Specter of Civil War in Thailand

CHIANG MAI, Thailand -- Thailand calls itself the Land of Smiles, and is known for its tropical beaches, beautiful mountains, good food and friendly people. But that may soon change. While

the happy-go-lucky image of Thailand may be hard for many to shake, political observers -- and the government -- are beginning to take the possibility of a civil

war much more seriously. On April 21, Jakrapob Penkair -- a key leader of the opposition United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and reputedly the man behind this month's violent protests in

Bangkok and Pattaya -- announced in a BBC interview that the struggle was not over. The UDD, Jakrapob said, would begin using different tactics, possibly even armed attacks.

"I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand's problem is getting smaller every day," he told the BBC. He went on to call for new general elections to allow a democratically elected government to take power. ...

World Politics Review
ฝ่ายตรงข้ามปลุกผีสงครามกลางเมือง