(Or rich blokes in Dubai, for that matter.)

From The Nation’s event updates:

“11.35 am – Reds shirts guards urge protesters taking shelters in Pathum Wanaram Temple to leave the temple and re-join the rally at Ratchaprasong rally site.

A TV9 reporter quoted the guards as telling the protesters that situation at the rally site return to normal. Some agree to leave while some others refuse to do so.”

After all I cannot think of any other major world city where people have camped out on a road for so long and listened to so much propaganda from their “leaders.” They must have been uniquely indoctrinated – not?

Mind you, the internet provides it’s own little hothouse world, no doubt about that. The farther you are from the consequences of violence, the easier it is to propose violence as a solution.

(BD: So you’re implying the leaders are far away from their own people.)

But of course I won’t bring his name up, because as you claim, I shouldn’t, because this is no longer “about Thaksin” … really?

From Wikipedia re Krue Se massacre:

“It was revealed that Pallop’s order to storm the mosque contravened a direct order by Defense Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh to seek a peaceful resolution to the stand-off no matter how long it took.”

Tak Bai was a military operation (bungle): I agree Thaksin handle the aftermath poorly – he should have been much more scathing on the military, but Dan know’s the fine line Thaksin was treading and what he was up against.

(Read Jakrapob’s “State within a State” for an insight.)

Of course, you get this line of argument from every authoritarian regime in the world and this is why most democratic societies strictly prohibit to use of military against the people. Thai society is still different because the military has far too much power – but frankly I’m shocked how many foreigners accept this line of thought. Gunning down protestants is not homeland security on steroits, its the moral bankruptcy of democracy.

“Senior hospital officials told PHR that they contacted police and military officials within the first few days of the UDD protests to express concern about hospital access and patient safety, but were told that additional security would not be provided. The hospital administration’s request of the Thai authorities comports with humanitarian principles and international standards on medical ethics, which require that medical personnel be granted necessary protection to carry out freely their responsibilities.”

(Hospital Staff Upholds International Medical Ethics During Unrest in Bangkok, 1)

“Following this incident (26 April red shirt “invasion” or “search”), senior hospital administrators contacted government officials to express their concern for the safety of approximately 1,200 patients, but were told not to expect any further protection. This decision constitutes a second instance in which Thai security forces refused to give medical personnel the protection they needed to carry out freely their ethical responsibilities to care for patients.”

(Hospital Staff Upholds International Medical Ethics During Unrest in Bangkok, 2)

1. Why was Chulalongkorn Hospital left so exposed to the red shirt mob by the Thai government in early April?

2. Doesn’t the aforementioned report suggest that the Thai government was negligent in its duty to provide protection and security to the personnel and patients of Chulalongkorn Hospital?

A careful read of the PHR briefing paper definitely leads one to raise more queries about the role played by Chulalongkorn Hospital in the initial stand-off between the government/CRES and the red shirts in the Ratchadamri/Silom/Rama IV intersection. It was strategic turf for both the security forces and the red shirts to occupy and to control. And especially intriguing was why it took the hospital administrators such a long period of time to decide on evacuating patients to other hospitals when an imminent threat existed.

As for Kraisak Choonhavan, Deputy Leader of the Democrat Party (does anyone recall how this political organization rose to such prominence in 1946?), he is the premier example of a Thai politician. The Democrats enticed him with a title, a respectable position that suits his pedigree and a living wage commensurate with his lifestyle. Kraisak had been recruited by the Democrats to give them a foothold in the Northeast as he had been a former senator of Nakorn Rathchasima. However, he has not been very effective in winning Isaan hearts and minds and after all the fratricidal bloodletting of the past month in Bangkok I do not see Kraisak able to do any future campaigning for the Democrat Party in the Northeast. Unless he wants to face Seh Daeng’s fate.

(BD: Don’t forget the Krue Se massacre.)