White paper on Thailand

[KhorTose]

I will freely admit that this report is pro Thaksin and was commisioned by him, but I find it an outstanding read of what has occurred in Thailand in the last four years. Warning, rather long and detailed, but a great read.

 

White Paper: The Bangkok Massacres – A Call for Accountability | Robert Amsterdam Thailand

[Guest beachlover]

Thaksin must be paying astronomical fees to him...

[Guest fountainhall]

I will freely admit that this report is pro Thaksin and was commisioned by him, but I find it an outstanding read of what has occurred in Thailand in the last four years. Warning, rather long and detailed, but a great read.

Having promised I would take a greater interest in the red shirt movement, I will read through all 77 pages in due course. For now, I had read only the Executive Summary and dipped in to a few sections that particularly interested me. To make any comments based on these alone is inevitably slightly unfair. But I feel I should make a few, before returning to the thread with more at a later stage.

 

1. In any dispute involving two parties, a history written by one party will certainly be biased towards that party (as KhorTose rightly points out). That is only natural. If the present government ever writes a similar account, it will also betray considerable bias.

 

2. The author provides interesting insights into the formation of the Thai Rak Thai party. He then discusses the party’s victory in the 2001 and 2005 elections. He rightly, in my view, highlights the effect on the elite which, I was not aware of before, initially supported Thaksin. For example, much of their wealth had been destroyed as a result of the Asian economic crisis. Thaksin was thus seen as “something of a potential saviour” (page 15). Yet, from what I have read so far, neither here nor in mentioning the 2006 election does he tackle the issue of voter corruption. I accept that every party does it, but I do not see how any ‘history’ can be complete without such a discussion, since many accusations of such corruption have been made against Thaksin and his political allies.

 

3. On page 19, he highlights one of the key events which infuriated the elite: Thaksin presiding over the ceremony at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in April 2005. He points out that this was usually (but not exclusively) performed by the King. My understanding is that in the absence of the King, the Crown Prince usually performs this duty. What the Report fails to mention is why Thaksin decided he was the right person to undertake this very solemn act rather than a member of the Royal Family (I certainly do not know). It seems to me to have been hugely provocative, to say the least.

 

4. Page 19 also highlights the sale of Shin Corporation. The author’s suggestion that “Thaksin had previously divested his interests in Shin Corp before entering politics” is a subject of much debate, and there seems to be at least some evidence that this statement is not true. There is no discussion of the dispute regarding the tax-free nature of the divestments. The subsequent sale of his 49.6% stake in Shin Corp was, we are told, “in response to allegations of conflict of interest.” What the author fails to mention (blatantly, in my view) is the enactment of the Thai Telecommunications Act (2006) enabled solely by Thaksin’s complete control over parliament. This act increased the limit on foreign holdings in telecoms companies from 25% to 49%. On the very same day this came into effect, Thaksin and his family sold their stake to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings. Too much is conveniently glossed over here.

 

5. Regarding the 2010 Red Shirt demonstrations, I agree with a reasonable part of the presentation. However, once again it is the author’s omissions that limit his credibility. In discussing the move to Ratchaprasong (page 44), he fails to mention the huge disruption this caused to a large swathe of the centre of a major capital city, the affect on the tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands whose lives, jobs and incomes suffered, and the fact that such a large scale long-term shut down is virtually unprecedented in a city centre. He mentions Abhisit’s reconciliation plan and proposal to hold November elections and the guarantees he wanted in return. He then adds the Red Shirts refused to disperse because their own requested guarantees had not been met. Since I was not in the country at this time, my memory of what happened may be slightly sketchy. My understanding is that a majority of the Red Shirt leaders did in fact accept Abhisit’s plan. It was only when one of their number received a mystery phone call (from whom, we can only guess!) that the further internal debate followed and the majority view changed. This again is not discussed.

 

6. On page 45, the author comments, “Most shamefully, the military closed off the ‘red zones’ to emergency medical staff.” I just do not know if that is true or not, but the author again fails to include the invasion by some of the red shirts of Chulalongkorn Hospital, thereby forcing the evacuation of the hospital. This is fact. The red shirts leaders later claimed they were looking for soldiers who were hiding in the building.

 

 

So, in summary, judging only – and I say again perhaps unfairly - on those parts I have read, I am convinced that the majority of the red shirts are decent hard-working people whose lives were improved by Thaksin and who feel betrayed by his ouster and the manner of that ouster. But it is the lack of balance, the failure to discuss, even in passing, allegations of Thaksin’s many misdeeds, corruption and abuse of power, and the omission of details important to issues being discussed, that will inevitably cast doubt on much of the rest of the Report, however valuable it may be.

 

As others have suggested, I think a clean break of the Red Shirts from Thaksin would do their cause far more good than harm.

[pong]

This Mr. Amsterdam, (sadly bearing the same name from here) was often mentioned as a special Spin Doctor to monitor and shine some positive lights on the reds/Thaksin case during the red-occupations. Nothing neutral in that-just a paid propaganda journalist. Which does not mean he only writes untrue, but is one-sided

[Guest fountainhall]

Nothing neutral in that-just a paid propaganda journalist. Which does not mean he only writes untrue, but is one-sided

From what I have read so far, there is a lot of solid fact in the document. I see from the Amsterdam & Peroff website that Mr. Amsterdam himself represents a number of interesting clients, including the leader of the opposition in Singapore - and that certainly can be no easy task! I note also that in a profile published by Canadian Lawyer, he is described as "one of the few lawyers in the world good at taking on the state when the state starts acting like a criminal." So he is both high profile and clearly very good at his job.

 

I am not sure why Thaksin commissioned this document. I have heard that he intends to appeal to the UN and various other international bodies. In that case, such a well-considered document by a recognised international legal firm ought to carry considerable weight. The problem with one-sided reports, however, is that the junior civil servants who go through them with a fine tooth comb before the top officials comment, need to spot just one or two obvious errors or omissions for the whole document to be marked "suspect". But I will refrain from further comment until I have been through it all.

[Guest dale1]

I have a friend who wants a copy of the Amsterdam White Paper .... I have gone to the referenced web site and it seems from there a copy can be made only by giving them free access to my FaceBook page, which I do not want to do.

 

Can anybody here tell me how to make a copy of it ...... or give me another web site address that has a more user-friendly "copy" process.

 

Thanks.

[Guest fountainhall]

Can anybody here tell me how to make a copy of it ...... or give me another web site address that has a more user-friendly "copy" process.

Using the link posted by KhorTose, you can email it to anyone by clicking on <share> on the top right of the document. You can also go into full screen and print from there. I think you can also download to your computer is you wish.

[Guest dale1]

Many thanks ...... although generally doing anything with this document on the SCRIBD page requires that you do it through your FaceBook page, it will allow you to simply PRINT it ... until it is posted on another website without the connection to the SCRIBD service, I guess this will have to suffice.

[Guest dale1]

I knew if I looked long enough I would find it ....... if you go to the following web site and click the "here" link .... you are given a PDF version of the document .... not connected to the SCRIBD service..... thanks folks......

 

“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”