Fri, 05/28/2010 - 14:53 | by MP68 | Vote to close topic
ใครมีconnection ชาวต่างประเทศเยอะๆ ฝากต่อด้วยค่ะ
ใครมีลิงค์หลักฐานเพิ่ม ฝากใส่ด้วยค่ะ
ขอบคุณค่ะ
......................................................................
Dear Sir,
I'm Thai who have observed the situation by myself, received any information from Thai and international sources. I know that there is some hidden agenda behind Thai media, why they must or need to be bias.
For example; The Nation, it had the conflict in ITV free channel case in
For the other media, as I have known some journalists and moderators working on Thai free TV, three persons I known have been intimidated to report the news in the direction that the government please. One of them was called by the military officer who asked him to choose between his family and the direction he report the news.
Accordingly, I must recheck it and research more before trust it, when I watch or read the news. I’ve found a lot of information that Thai media never presented and some that they exaggerate more than the real situation and make the conclusion by themselves without the crucial evidence to support. In my opinion, most Thai media have the conspiracy. It's necessary for them in order to survive.
We can see a lot of examples, that some Thai who believe Thai media and government’s propaganda try to insult every organizations such as HRW BBC CNN MEPs and other international organization s who inform what they don't like that they don't know the truth as them. (How do they know, what they think is true or false when they never open their mind to learn the difference?) .Moreover they claim that those media is bias or receive money from someone they against.
By the way the censorship in
For how Abhisit came to power, I will tell you in sequence.
Four years ago, the country was led by Thaksin, a billionaire populist who was twice re-elected. A deeply divisive figure loved by the rural poor and loathed by the country’s elite. The PAD - anti Thaksin movement, mostly the elite and middle class who lost their benefit to the poor, rallied for so long time and then the military coup came to dispel Thaksin government.
Then the coup's government felt to rule the country. They issued new constitution which a lot of unlawful article to protect themselves and disadvantage their political foes. They assigned their new supported group of officers to work in judgment and court system. After that, they let the condition: if we didn't accept this constitution, there‘s no new election and they could apply worse constitution as they please. So the majority accepted it with the fear for worse rule and hope for new election.
After an election, PPP; pro Thaksin party; unexpectedly won again with 233 seats from 480 seats. While Democrat gained 165 seats. So PPP had right to form the government. Then The PAD can't accept the result, blamed that they bought vote (In fact, every other parties in Thailand also buy vote included Democrat party).They closed the street for 7 months , seized the government house for 3 months and Thai international airports about a week in total, and they didn't ask for democratic solutions but only wanted to expel whoever who support Thaksin out of their power.
They didn't want common election but just raised the one they preferred to get in power. Moreover they also have dangerous ideas against democracy. For example; the one so- called “70/30” which means 70% of representatives in parliament should come from an assignment of the committee contained of experts, academic professors or other selected elites and the other 30% come from an election. Another example is the idea to prohibit normal citizens who don’t hold academic degrees to vote in an election because they believe that the low-educated people are too stupid to choose a good leader.
After long protest, the court, as the tool, banned all 3 parties on government side which affected these parties’ executive committees out of the position as representatives. They also made the other politicians go against PPP. Some of formal PPP members turned to Democrat side. Consequently, the proportion of the parliament was changed. Then they brought the parties’ leaders to the military Barracks to lobby them with or without force up to cases. So people can imply that they used dirty tools to form the government. And that is how the new government lead by Democrat came to power.
Some of his supporters claim that Abhisit and his coalition came from the same parliament. It’s half-true because he took his power after he got rid of his opponents. So this is the difference between an elected one and a person who come to power by dirty elimination of his foes.
- How they use the court to unbalance the sovereignty?
- How they intimidate the other politicians?
- Is the negotiation in the military barrack to form the new government the right thing for democracy?
For the demonstration, I think we should know the root of problem first. The problem is not Thaksin or some few people.
Some foreigners call this crisis as “social class war”. In fact, it isn't exactly “social class war" or political difference, but the crackdown of Thai society. Yes, it's about the different between rich and poor but in the abstract way. What the poor want is the acceptation and equal chance for their life. The poor don't care much how much money they can gain but they want the acceptation from the rich ones.
The situation in
The person, no matter class they are, if they agree and pay sympathetic for the poor will be claimed as the fool one and will be pushed to that political side, although they've no interest in political issue.( I also have that experience.)
So I think the trend of Thai society now is the isolation and discrimination between people's hearts, which strong enough to eliminate ones who think different out of society. Even if it may costs people's lives, some don't feel guilty about it at all.
For the acceptation and chance, Taksin was an idol for the poor because he is the first one who gave it down to them. He didn't give the budget for them freely but use strategies to make them try to work and have their praise. For example, he gave them the legal loan for their investment or payment. Before his time, the government had never concerned that the poor never allowed having debt with the formal financial institutes because they don't have enough asset to guarantee. With the illegal ones, they must pay for very high interest rate. So forget about the investment or have their own business. It’s very hard for the poor to improve their status and quality of life by themselves. Even if they have similar ability as the richer one.
When Thaksin gave the chance to them, he also made the conditions. If you borrow the money and you can't pay back in time, you'll never receive it again. So it stimulates the people to work for themselves. At the same time he improved the healthcare and education in rural areas, made the stand-alone brand "OTOP" for the rural ones. So they can work, create and have pride with their works.
In contradiction, Abhisit gives the money, too. This is with more "popularity" policy without repayment. But he gives just only money not the chance. He gives money but he still looks down of them by his speeches and actions. For the investment and financial policies he usually gives the priority to the big enterprises not the small or middle ones.
I think the corruption issue is also significant. But no only Thaksin who corrupted ; in fact; so do the members of Democrat .The Democrat play the most corruption in Thai history but they never blame what they did and the elite back-up help them to cover it with the law distortion and media. There’s no sanction for every politician ‘s corruptions except Thaksin’s.
Have you ever heard about the cases such as Thai BIBF ,
The court have sentenced Thaksin for 2 years in prison but I have read the reason and it isn't directly told that he corrupt but just only against the morality as the prime minister and help his alliance to gain profit from his policies as same as another normal people (yet no prove to support).
For the other most popular accusation is that Thaksin and Redshirt want to overthrow the king. I think that is a very silly issue. I believe that most of UDD respect the king and never drag the king down as the other group did. Yes, there're some few people who don't respect to the monarchy but not the whole of the group. It's different between "disrespect" and "overthrow ". And if they blame that Thaksin has this kind of idea, they should have the solid evidence not just only the connection between him and the others.
In cyber world, you may find that most Thai are against Redshirt. It is so normal, because they are in the educational class. For the poor they have too few ways to discuss which these guys in especially international forums and for the most middle class who think different, they just keep it in mind. It's dangerous to their social positions. For me, I also have an effect that some of my friends saw what I've commented here and gossip about me or try to isolate me. But I don't care much about it because I'm also sick of that kind of society.
The education in
For the education, that the middle class guys usually claim that the poor and rural persons are uneducated. I think it isn't true.
How much education we need to understand politic?
In fact, Thai literacy rate is about 95%. That means almost everyone can read and receive any information they want. And so-called "Educated" in Democracy means how much you understand about democracy, right, freedom and another political nature.
As you see, some of people who claim themselves as "educated “ones, can't understand about these kinds of issues better than the poor ones. So, that is how the problem goes in
For the demonstration, I think that they both make the violence but who stir it first.
From March to 8th April, the protestors had really peaceful demonstration. Meanwhile, both sides had the negotiation but couldn't come to an agreement because they couldn't accept the conditions from the oppositions.
The first serious incident happened when the government seized the media station of the redshirt without the court procedure but used the military instead. The protestors came to Thaicom Station to ask it back but they received the tear gas booms and rubber bullets instead.
Next day, the protestors had the demonstration outside the parliament but suddenly, the government thrown the tear gas boom to the protestors. Some of them were angry and tried to break into the parliament. After the negotiation, 20 people could get into the parliament to ask for the reason and responsibility but received no answer. The vice prime minister, Mr. Sutep , who took the responsibility had already gone.
After that the government used this incident to claim the state of emergency and forced the law.
10th April 2010, the government claim that it wanted to ask for the space of Ratchaprasong back from the protestors. But the military with heavy weapons was ordered to troop to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8612783.stm
After that incidence the next round negotiation got cancel.
Is that the fault of the protester to have anger against the government after their friends were killed and injured as a consequence by the government action?
28th April, again the government used the military with heavy weapons. The result is the death of a soldier by "friendly fire".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8648109.stm
The government used the video from Aljazeera to claim and rerun several times on Thai media that the one who shot the soldier was redshirt. (Who wore black but, in fact, have the similar uniform as the special police.) After that the Aljazeera report against the government announcement that it’s misinformation and distortion.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2010/05/01/shot-had-huge-impact
4th May, Abhisit announced his Roadmap and 5 May the UDD received it s principle but asked for the detail and confirmation. PAD was against it and warned that they would have arranged the rally if the roadmap had been applied.
For the Roadmap
Abhisit promised that with his speech (but his speeches usually were altered and forgotten what when the time past). So the UDD accept it with their speech, too. If the government wants the action from UDD side, it should act first. On the other hand, the government added more and more soldiers, cut the infrastructure in the protester area and trooped to kill them ,then call the peaceful roadmap.
When the speech is 180 degrees off the action, what could we call that? A lie?
I suggest to let every parties sign the ratification long ago. Because it is the way to entrust that the Roadmap is the real not just the propaganda to buy the time. In addition, after Abhisit ‘s speech, there’s no evidence to show that this Roadmap can be successful. PAD went against it. Some Democrat member didn't approve it. The Election Commission said that the prime minister had never consulted it first for his guarantee about new election with them. And they’ve never seen the document about it.
Moreover he has no right to issue new election date. It's the Election Commission authority. His authority is only dissolve the parliament; promise the date about it then the law and other officer will drive the other step to new election automatically.
So why didn’t Abhisit make what he can make. Not promise the thing he can't do.
Is it difficult to do the direct thing than the reticent one?
If both sides have any other request, just come to open talk .Eye to eye…side by side…to make a negotiation then agreement.
I see this kind of situation compare to the trading situation. The Government sells their roadmap, the UDD‘s interested in it but don’t please enough about some conditions. So if they don’t come to talk and make a bargain, the trade isn’t success. If they talk and can come to the conclusion, then they both must sign the contract. After that, the government (the seller) must show their product and hand it to the UDD( buyer) ,at the same time the buyer must pay for the goods.
The situation was on hold. The government announced that unless the protestors accept the roadmap without any conditions before 15th May, the government considered using military force to disperse the demonstration.
The problem is that 12th May, Red shirt general got shot and dead after that.
14th May, the Crackdown began before the deadline.
15th May, live fire zone was announced.
The soldiers shot live bullets (most from snipers or rifles) to everyone they can shoot; most of dead and injured ones didn’t have any weapon or tried to harm the soldiers. (Included journalists, normal citizens, nurses, police etc.) And a few protestors had only cocktail bomb, homemade bombs or shotgun.
These are the evidences :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyapbQCWzac
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1469377857410&ref=mf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZeVvmOlAI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfoTuVPY3l4&feature=player_E M B E Dded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxAbTIdFKU
http://www.reporterinexile.com/
Afternoon 19th May, the UDD leader surrendered to the police but the shooting game of the soldiers continued. Evening the existing protestors ceased fire.
I used to say long ago that I'm against all kind of the violence because the violence causes the other violence (as action and reaction)
At the end this brings only tragedy. I think this is the result of violence from the government for the past whole month. So after long endurance, they can't endure it any longer. Under the stress, fear and wrath, you can predict what will happen for the people under the circumstance.
However there’s something I can’t clearly understand, after the surrender of UDD leaders, the situation is uncontrolled, the person who raised the incident after that can be anyone which you can't identify. From the VDO clip you can only see most people ran away, some people around the burnt down building with anger, few are creasing fire with tires. But this one can't use as the evidence to tell who is the redshirts, who is normal people who (may be) the third party.
Beside, as I consider about the timeline and the position, at that time the UDD leader had already surrendered to the police and the military could control the most of that area. They can troop to the
For me, I turned to be more interested in redshirt movement after the black Songkran last year. Before that I never thought to take a side and never care whether red or yellow. But after Abhisit came to power, he not only can't fulfill his promise but also make it worse. The government holds the judgment procedure of the PAD make an excuse that they're too many personal witnesses. Now we can see how fast the process of the UDD's ,even though there're many more witnesses to ask and prove. And then, the crackdown on black Songkran with I could see the evidence from the other media and the eyewitness my uncle who live in Nanglerng district were very different for what the government report. So I try to research it by myself.
Last, I can't stand the society that has no mercy for the lack of human right , cruel people who never care about the other's lives and using ironic words to blame the other without looking back to themselves.
So, I agree with redshirt‘s principle but never support the hardcore and violence. However I analyze it as cause and result. Why are things happened? What is the motivation? And that is all of my opinion.
Thank you for your understanding and sympathy to all Thai.
Best Regards,
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น