บรรดารถถังออกมาเคลื่อนขบวนกันในยามค่ำคืน ราวกับเกิดการรัฐประหารขึ้นอีกครั้งในกรุงเทพ

ภาพที่เห็นนี้ เป็นการเคลื่อนยานรถถังยานเกราะไปตามถนนในกรุงเทพ จนทำให้บรรดาสมาชิกของภาครัฐบาลที่มาจากการเลือกตั้งของประชาชนต้องกระวนกระวายใจ

เกมส์สงครามจิตวิทยา เป็นคำพูดที่เจ้าหน้าที่ฝ่ายรัฐได้บรรยายถึงการปรากฏตัวของบรรดารถถังในเมืองหลวง เหมือนราวกับว่าเป็นการเตือนหรือข่มขู่จากฝ่ายทหารว่าอะไรก็เกิดขึ้นได้ เมื่อสัปดาห์ที่แล้วหนังสือพิมพ์ไทยรัฐที่มียอดจำหน่ายสูงสุดในประเทศไทยก็ได้กล่าวถึง ข่าวลือเรืองรัฐประหาร

การพูดจาข่าวโคมลอยเรื่องรัฐประหารในกรุงเทพ เหมือนการสร้างสถานการณ์ ซึ่งมักจะเกิดขึ้นอย่างมีพื้นฐานจากการเมืองที่เข้าสู่ขั้นวิกฤต อันเนื่องมาจากการที่ทางฝ่ายทหารและฝ่ายอำมาตย์ ไม่ยอมรับรัฐบาลที่มาจากการเลือกตั้งโดยระบอบประชาธิปไตย

แต่จากการรัฐประหาร 18 ครั้ง และหลายครั้งที่ทำการสังหารหมู่ประชาชนที่ไร้อาวุธโดยเหล่าทหาร กองทัพที่มีความสัมพันธ์อย่างใกล้ชิดกับสหรัฐอเมริกา ก็ยังมีความพยายามที่จะทำการล้มล้าง ความเป็นประชาธิปไตยของประเทศไทยให้ได้อีกวาระหนึ่ง

แล้วใครกันล่ะที่นั่งเฝ้ารออย่างใจจดใจจ่อที่จะกลับมามีอำนาจอีกครั้งหนึ่ง? เขาคนนั้นคือ อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ

With Thai Army tanks on night-time manoeuvres coup rumours persist in Bangkok

As photos emerge of Thai Army tanks rumbling around Bangkok on unannounced night-time manoeuvres, members of the democratically-elected Thai government appear to be getting very jittery.

"Psychological games" is how one senior government member described these tanks appearing on the streets of the Bangkok capital to me and sources close to other senior figures are saying that "warnings" have already been passed along regarding their safety should "anything happen". Only last week Thailand's most important best-selling newspaper, Thai Rath, also published reports of "coup rumours".

Whether the talk of a coup is just the usual Bangkok rumour mongering - something that seems to be a constant and well-founded worry whenever Thailand's political situation reaches a crisis point, with these crises usually arriving when the Thai Army and other shadowy elements in the Thai elites fail to recognise the legitimacy of a democratically elected government - is hard to tell.

But with 18 coups and several massacres of unarmed civilians under their belt the Thai Army, a military force which has an extraordinarily close relationship with the USA, can never be fully counted out of attempting to subvert Thai democracy once more.

And who is waiting in the wings, desperate for power once again? One Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Misogyny, defamation and Yingluck - Thailand's "liberals" show their true colours again

The debate about Thai Prime Minister Yingluck filing a case against the Thai Rath cartoonist, Chai Rachawa, after he made what can only be termed a misogynistic and clearly malicious defamation against her, is reaching absurd proportions.

First of all, let me be clear, I think she would’ve been better laughing it off with a joke about this obvious little squirt being scared of strong women – “maybe his grandmother used to spank him when he was a boy, who knows?” – something like that.

However, I also understand her need to protect herself from smears, libels and defamations. And let’s be frank – the extreme rightwing and anti-democracy movements that make up the opposition to Yingluck’s democratically elected and popular government are filled with racists, misogynists and fascists.

Yingluck herself has had to endure almost two years of malicious smear after malicious smear, defamation upon defamation, libel after libel and the worst kind of misogynistic abuse.

So, she finally had enough and used the defamation law to protect herself.

Let’s be clear – Thailand’s defamation law is open to ALL Thais. Yes, it is used far too often to shut up critics (how many cases have the Democrats and Constitutional Court now filed against Pheu Thai and the Red Shirts? Must be in the dozens and isn’t it weird how Thailand’s fake “liberals” have ignored all that?) but it doesn’t come close to 112 as a law suited only to political purposes. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda would claim that Yingluck’s use of the defamation law is equal to 112. In fact, it’s such an absurd claim it actually denigrates the lese majeste prisoners who are rotting in Thai prisons, serving real jail time.

I should also add that defamation is criminalised throughout Europe and in 17 US states. In many other countries where libel and defamation is settled via civil law the kind of malicious defamations and smears that have been used to denigrate Yingluck would get many newspapers sued out of existence. This notion that democracies can only function when we allow all defamation, hate speech etc is complete and total garbage and the argument of a delusional teenager.

Of course having an argument about whether Thailand should have criminal defamation laws is another debate completely. What I would say is that in countries with civil defamation laws the only people who end up able to sue are the very rich.

So please – less hyperbole, less self-promoting, more reasoned debate and lets stick to the facts.

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. 

Did Brad Adams and Human Rights Watch in Thailand lie about the Red Shirts?

This following article was originally published by Asia Sentinel but was censored by them.

In early 2011, less than a year after the terrible violence that shook Bangkok - violence which occurred after the unelected Thai PM, Abhisit Vejjajiva, sent armed soldiers against unarmed pro-democracy Red Shirt protesters - Human Rights Watch Asia Director, Brad Adams, popped up at a meeting held in the UK Parliament.

There Adams accused the Red Shirts of starting the fires that engulfed small parts of downtown Bangkok – many of which began only after the Thai Army had moved into and secured the areas where the fires occurred.

Adams was emphatic as he spoke to British lawmakers stating, without equivocation, that

 “There was a plan to burn Bangkok and that was executed by the Red Shirts”

(see this youtube clip from 1min 35secs - the date at the beginning is wrong, it should say 2011 not 2001).

HRW Brad Adams speaking at meeting at UK Parliament

 Yet, as has since transpired, Adams had no firm evidence to back up his claims and that he deliberately distorted the truth in order to keep in place what appears to have been HRW’s own, secret, anti-Thaksin – and by proxy – anti-Red Shirt agenda. Of course the consequences of Adams’ misrepresentations had a real-life impact on the human rights of ordinary, innocent Thais who’d only been attempting to secure the kind of democratic rights Adams himself enjoys in his home country, the USA.

 As yet, despite almost three years of investigation and 100s of arrests, not one single Red Shirt has been found guilty of setting fire to any buildings in Bangkok (some Red Shirts, based on flimsy evidence, have been found guilty of arson by single judge, no jury, courts in other parts of Thailand - but these cases are now under appeal) and, more recently, two Red Shirts accused of setting the largest of the fires at the Central World shopping centre have been found completely innocent of all charges related to that act. These individuals were, however, held in prison for almost 3years, stripped of their basic dignity and rights and their families suffered great hardship as a result.

 So why the silence from Adams? Surely he should now apologise directly to the accused given that he had publicly attempted to pass off unsubstantiated unproven allegations as fact, thereby abusing his position as a trusted source on human rights matters? Why wasn’t Adams able to allow the Red Shirts to be judged solely on the actual evidence placed before a court? Has he never heard of sub-judice and prejudice? Or does a right to have a trial free from such prejudice only apply to those Adams deems fit? Adams false comments  to the British parliament must go down as an appalling abuse of office by an international human rights director and he must be held accountable for that. Or, at the bare minimum, exposed to the full glaring light of the truth.

 HRW’s record in Thailand is questionable at best and disgraceful at worst. The Wikileaks cables revealed HRW’s Thai staff to be self-confessed anti-Thaksin activists, who supported the illegal 2006 coup and who refused to support Thai trade unionists being harassed with Thailand’s draconian lese majeste laws. Wikileaks also revealed the close contact between the US mission in Thailand and HRW (the US have long supported, armed and provided intelligence and training to the most extreme rightwing elements of the coup/massacre-loving Thai Army) with HRW staffers visiting the US embassy on over 60 occasions.   

 When you add in Adams’ disingenuous and deliberate misrepresentations then you have to question why Adams is still in post. He, ultimately, is also responsible for the shameful behaviour of HRW in Thailand and given that his actions have been part of the mood music that diminished the basic human rights of ordinary Thais the only honourable thing is for Adams to resign. That, however, is doubtful - Adams is more likely to have further falsehoods to distribute and trials to prejudice in the future. In the meantime those interested in protecting human rights in Thailand and Asia would do well to be suspicious of the motives of HRW's regional director.

In the video of Adams speaking at the UK Parliament he states that "we should go after everybody and not take sides". Unfortunately the Wikileaks cables reveal that HRW almost certainly DID take sides and that's why, ultimately, anyone seeking the truth must go after HRW as well. It was in this spirit that this article was written.

Thai Army - a video of criminals at work

Seems like the Thai Army are up to their old tricks of brutalising their own soldiers.

A new video clip of a group of Thai Army officers torturing and beating an ordinary conscript has emerged revealing, once again, what a vicious bunch of thugs they are.

Of course armies need to be tough and soldiers should be able to fulfil their duties but there is something vicious and undisciplined about the Thai Army - something that resembles a gangster clique rather than professional, honourable fighting men.

But then the Thai Army with its long history of massacres and coups has never really had to defend Thailand from anything more than unarmed students, refugees and pro-democracy protesters. To routinely shoot your own citizens is not the work of soldiers but of criminals.

And who arms and trains this rabble?

Just ask the air-headed US Ambassador Kristie Kenney or the slippery UK envoy Mark Kent.

กรณ์: “ดร.ทักษิณเคยเสนองานให้ผม”

ความสับสนเกี่ยวกับการไปฮ่องกงของนายกรณ์ครั้งล่าสุดกรณีที่เขาดันไปอยู่ในในโรงแรมเดียวกันวันเดียวกันกับทักษิณ ชินวัตร “โดยบังเอิญ” ทำให้ผมนึกถึงบางอย่างที่เขาบอกผมเมื่อต้นปี พ.ศ. 2554 ในระหว่างการสัมภาษณ์เพื่อลงในเวปไชต์ Asian Correspondent ว่า

ดร.ทักษิณเคยเสนองานให้ผมครั้งหนึ่ง แต่ผมได้ปฎิเสธไป

ผมพูดได้เลยว่า แม้ว่านายกรณ์จะเป็นผู้ดีไฮโซทุกกระเบียดนิ้ว แต่เขาไม่ใช่คนที่มีอุดมการณ์ ในความเห็นผมคือ เขาคือพวกแทคโนแครตมากกว่านักการเมืองที่มีความเชื่อมั่นอย่างแรงกล้า และดังนั้นจึงเป็นเรื่องง่ายมากที่เขาจะเปลี่ยนจุดยืนหากมีเงื่อนไขที่เหมาะสม

เรื่องราวที่ว่านายกรณ์ไปฮ่องกงเพื่อไป “สอดแนม” เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่สมเหตุสมผล นายกรณ์มีความสูงมากกว่า 180 ซม. ซึ่งเป็นคนไทยที่สูงที่สุดคนหนึ่งเท่าที่ผมเคยพบมา และเพราะความสูงของเขาทำให้เขาเป็นจุดเด่นอย่างมากไม่ว่าเขาจะไปที่ไหนในในเอเชียตะวันตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ เขาเป็นคนสุดท้ายที่คุณจะส่งไปทำงานที่เป็นความลับ

เรื่องที่ว่านายกรณ์มีความจงรักภักดีต่อนายอภิสิทธิ์อย่างมาก เป็นเรื่องที่ผมไม่เชื่อเลย

แหล่งข่าวของผมซึ่งมีความใกล้ชิดกับนายอภิสิทธิ์เป็นอย่างมากไม่เคยพูดเรื่องดีๆเกี่ยวกับหัวหน้าพรรคประชาธิปัตย์คนนี้เลย จริงๆแล้วชัดเจนมากว่า พวกเขารู้สึกว่านายอภิสิทธิ์เป็นคนเลวร้ายที่ทำลายพรรคประชาธิปัตย์

ดังนั้น นายกรณ์จะเปลี่ยนใจไปร่วมกับเพื่อไทยหรือไม่? อาจจะไม่ใช่ แต่นี่อาจเป็นข้อตกลงที่จะเอานายกรณ์ขึ้นมาเป็นหัวหน้าพรรคเพื่อแลกเปลี่ยนเอานายอภิสิทธิ์เข้าคุกหรือไม่?

ผมขอให้เป็นเช่นนั้น