Until you have explained that, please do not talk about how the “military/Democrats” have to get rid of Thaksin to “clean” up the govt! More like clean out Thailand.

(BD: Yeah yeah and Thaksin promised a solution. Did you try fishing?)

As for LM allegations made, I do believe that they are mostly being thrown around as a way to discredit opponents. LM laws are in need of dire reform but which government will dare touch them? It would be political suicide in a nation that loves their king as much as the Thais do.

I don’t care if the monument is politically incorrect either … but it is important to erect a monument, a memorial, to the death of Thai common good sense (if you like) that allowed the recent tragedy to befall the Thai kingdom.

If I suggest a huge figure of Beloved Leader in a red suit holding a really big eternal torch (striking a pose like NY’s Statue of Liberty), that kind of monument would be a stopper, eh?

Like I said … let the city open up a contest to suggest a “politically correct” plan for such a monument.

Or if you want to see the intimidation effect perhaps pose the question of why the ABC had to shut their bureau in Bangkok recently …

Obviously I have to agree about the Thai language focus of the censorship. It probably goes some way towards explaining the “popular” campaigns against the foreign media coverage that it is frustratingly difficult to treat them the same way.

Thaksin’s network? Well the whole network concept is based on patronage. So if you believe that Thaksin’s patronage is motivating some of these very serious names to support him in his alleged terrorism you would have to assume that these very serious people have been offered some very big inducements as the opportunity cost of furnishing their support is surely quite high. Thaksin’s network is supporting terrorism, right?

You know it’s not my intention to challenge the official version of events. It’s too late for reasonable analysis of the obvious distortions and lacunae evident in the way different sides to this conflict have presented themselves and justified their actions. If you do that then you are suggesting that by listening to the opposition you can arrive at some sort of agreement or compromise and by definition most governments don’t publicly advocate compromise when faced with what they claim to be terrorism.

It is certainly helpful if you can confine the terrorist label to Thaksin and his network. Identify his network and resolve the problem right? No need to compromise and certainly no need to reflect on any other issues until you have dealt with these trouble making subversives. In the process, at least for the duration, you can dismiss statements from the red shirts as spurious and designed simply to incite hatred …

It’s very clear to me that so long as people continue to believe that the Thaksin network are a force to reckoned with, Thailand isn’t going to be very pleasant for anyone. Root this element out, destroy their ability to create further problems and the situation may be come a little clearer. Censor the truth, intimidate the media, encourage the self appointed vigilantes of thought crime … Its a war, right?

The truth isn’t relevant now. What matters is getting control of the situation before it gets out of hand. I accept censorship is necessary but I can’t switch off my brain and parrot the propaganda.

I think what Donald Rumsfeld said at the start of another conflict that still rages is quite apposite:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.”

This is the position of the Thai population living under censorship. It’s arguable that very many people, not even the uncensored foreign media, are fully informed of the reality of Thailand’s political situation. In fact, given so much is decided behind closed doors, it’s fair to ask, is anyone fully informed?

Sorry that just slipped out! Quite bad tempered of me. I know the government version of events stinks but if the truth is destabiliizing then to hell with the truth. Let’s live in the kingdom of make believe. But the official story is paper thin.

For example, as this email referred to by Dan and other official documents in circulation clearly indicate there is a substantial amount of non-Thaksin money behind the red shirts. If it’s all about him getting his cash back why are they risking their own asserts and future opportunities? I thought this was all about one guy and his henchmen stirring up the uneducated? Names being circulated are, as Dan rightly suggests, very serious. So why do those “big people” care if a political has been gets his money back? What’s it all really about?

I wonder what role the very serious lèse majesté law is having here?

The best way to be politically neutral would be to make it a monument to shopping, some kind of huge, oh, hang on…

I have no idea how that monument will look like but I am very convinced this monument still be built is urgently needed to help quiet the lingering unease in the Thai peoples hearts and to inspire the Thai people to search a common ground towards achieving reconciliation and normalcy.

On the subject of censorship I would normally be against it but in certain circumstances, when society is in danger of being seriously destabilized I think it is justifiable. The problem is of course that the unaccountable people who censor will inevitably abuse their power.

I would not agree with you on the subject of censorship under Thaksin though. It was an unpleasant environment but Thailand, except for a few brief periods has always been heavily censored. Those who knew Thailand of Thaksin assumed that his populism would mean a break from the past but his policies really mirrored those of previous regimes that have now been consigned to history. The actual figures for lesse majeste cases for any year of Thaksin’s regime compared with the last year available (under the current regime) would bear me out. As there are a number of other newly enacted laws like the computer crimes act to deal with now I don’t think you can argue that the situation has improved since Thaksin left. I would concede that Thaksin’s scandalous interference with the press was much more personal though. Where his agenda was being affected he was absolutely ruthless. If your measure is the difference between the actions of prime ministers then Thaksin is certainly by far the worst of the 21st century PMs. However if your measure is prosecutions for lèse majesté then he’s a long way behind the current dispensation. No idea what the prosecution rate is for offenders against the computer crimes act but as this is new legislation it’s bound to boost numbers in prison for their views. There are also a few older statutes that might be being invoked. Bangkok Pundit’s account of a raid on a history professor today is an interesting example of this. You should also consider the promulgated powers under emergency rule which give CRES the prerogative to decide not only what information to censor but also whether that information is correct or not. The transmission of incorrect information is a crime under emergency rule. You will have to concede that this is a much more encompassing concept than the targeted approach of other legislation that is already in place.

A couple of other points worth considering:

1. Amnesty International, an organization that I have strongly supported elsewhere, has from its founding defined a prisoner of conscience as someone who is jailed for the expression of an opinion. Why is Amnesty in Thailand so totally cowed?

2. Not that you would know from reports in the Thai media this evening but Apichatpong Weerasethakul used the winners platform at the Cannes film festival to strongly criticize the Thai governments censorship of opinion and ideas that it does not agree with. He ought to know as his film Syndromes and the Century cannot be seen here except with four full scenes deleted. He has the integrity to insist that cinemas show black screens where the deleted scenes were. What integrity is there in pretending that what is happening IS not happening?

And thanks for the link to that fascinating interview with Cannes winner in the NYT, BTW.

“At his Cannes news conference, where journalists posed questions about the recent clashes between the government and the red-shirt protestors in Bangkok, Mr. Apichatpong did not mince words. “Thailand is a violent country,” he said. “It’s controlled by a group of mafia.””

Whew. There are more good quotes out there as everyone wants a few words with the man. Can the powers that be censor all of them?
He’s a bit vague about releasing the film in Thailand so if I want to see a catfish engage in a sexual act I guess I’ll have to go to puritanical Singapore!