Thai academics are well-known voices on television and radio as analysts and commentators providing lively debate on politics. But broadcasting freely is no longer a simple and safe matter since the government crackdown against Red Shirt protesters in May.

[...]

“Many professors are reluctant to take sides, often they censor themselves. If I talk about linguistics I have to be [politically] neutral,” said Suda Rangkupan, a lecturer in linguistics at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

[...]

Prestigious Chulalongkorn University in the heart of Bangkok sought to distance itself from comments made by its academics. In a letter, the university said they should not refer to their university affiliation when commenting on broadcast media or in interviews.

“We are not allowed to say we are from Chulalongkorn. The university authorities believe people will be convinced by what we say because we have respect in society as academics of this university,” Suda said.

[...]

“(…) In the second week of June I found in my mailbox an official note from the head asking for cooperation from every faculty member not to talk about politics in classes and not to encourage students to join the [red shirt] movement.”

So Chula did not say it would totally forbid its professors from airing political views; they only need to make sure they don’t “refer to their university affiliation” when they do so. Oh sure, the audience aren’t ever going to find out who they are.

Also, Suda Rangkupan is a red shirt supporter. It was not clear from the report whether any similar warnings were sent out to yellow shirt academics.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Audio Clip of Thongchai Winichakul’s Lecture at CMU
2. Wassana Nanuam Becomes Latest Victim of Thai Media Intimidation
3. Launching TumblerBlog.com

(photo credit: Prachatai on Flickr)

No matter which government we have in power, human rights remain essentially an alien concept in Thailand. The Rohingya affairs, the drug war, the perpetual emergency decree – you name it. And yet things have taken a strange, or should I say depressing, turn when the country was elected as president of the UN Human Rights Council (see here). Yes you heard it right. A country with serious human rights problems like Thailand now gets to chair a global agency in charge of promoting civil liberties and scrutinising human rights situation worldwide!

The Nation was quick to portray this as a significant achievement of the Abhisit administration:

Kudos must go to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who did not budge when they were urged by international and Thai human rights groups to withdraw from bidding for a seat at the Human Rights Council.

The result was telling. Thailand came in second with 182 votes after the Maldives (185), despite the political crisis that was brewing on the streets of Bangkok. The result indicates the country’s diplomatic and human rights credentials. [...]

However, Pokpong Lawansiri in The Guardian provides an illuminating insight into what actually happened during the selection process (emphasis added):

Can this election of the council’s presidency be viewed as a realistic reflection of Thailand’s human rights standards?

The council was set up in 2006 to replace the contentiously debated UN commission on human rights. The election of the presidency is done on a rotating basis from five regional groups: Latin America and Caribbean, eastern Europe, Africa, western Europe and other states, and Asia. Since 2006, representatives of all four regional groups have served as presidents to the council, with the exception of Asia.

Based on this, Thailand was not competing against countries with better recognised human rights records such as those governments of Switzerland or Norway. Instead, Thailand was competing against countries in Asia, namely Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan and Maldives – all of which are criticised by rights watchdogs as human rights violators.

[...]

Maldives, a relatively young democracy, has only just emerged from a history of military coups and held its first democratic election in 2008. The country was ruled by Maumoon Gayoom, who denied free and fair elections, for 20 years. Being a small country, the Maldives lacked the political leverage required to convince member states of their leadership.

This is how the council was left with Thailand. As chair of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2009, Thailand had strong support from the member states in addition to many other states that could be provided by its ambassador.

Interestingly, one thing that The Nation and Pokpong seem to agree on is that this new privilege will also increase the pressure on the Thai state to do more to protect civil liberties and rectify existing human rights violations in the country. If pressures from rights groups around the world have not been strong enough for the government to act, now it has the added burden of chairing a UN body to live up to.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region
3. When and When Not to Criticise the ‘Foreigners’

If the clashes in Bangkok were transposed to central Paris, international commentators would be talking excitedly about revolution, class warfare, the future of the social contract, looming economic catastrophe and the end of democracy. Outside pressure to calm the situation would be immense.

Indeed there have been complaints by frustrated Thais as to why the Bangkok crisis has not got more international attention. But if the conflict drags on, that may well change.

[...]

Thailand’s continuing democratic example matters to Malaysia, to the south, where tensions over ethnic, civil and human rights sometimes produce autocratic responses, and even more so in Burma, to the north, where pro-democracy forces oppose a brutal military dictatorship. But sustaining Thai democracy also matters to Britain and other western countries, which look at a region increasingly influenced by the Chinese communist hegemony and wonder how long key states such as Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, will uphold western democratic values and standards if neighbours discard them.

Generally speaking, Thailand used to be regarded as the region’s “beacon of democracy” especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. The coup in 2006 did much to destroy that image, and currently Indonesia – with its increasingly robust democratic politics – seems to be the Western world’s new darling in terms of setting an example for other Southeast Asian countries to follow.

Yet, it is still premature to think of the reds as a definitively pro-democracy movement for the reasons I have pointed out before (see here and here). And in the next section, Tisdall is cautious enough not to overplay the reds’ and Thaksin’s democratic credentials (although calling the red-shirts “a pro-Thaksin movement” is inaccurate as well):

The political, as well as physical, collision between the redshirts – a pro-Thaksin movement ostensibly representing the urban and rural poor – and establishment forces comprising the political and military elites, royalists and Thailand’s newly wealthy bourgeoisie also has a significance reaching beyond Bangkok. The rich versus poor theme can be overplayed. The reality is more complicated.

The billionaire Thaksin is no Robin Hood, and his time in power was marked by a violent war on drugs, high-level corruption and harsh military measures in the south. [...]

Tisdall goes on to give us his last reason why the world should be worried:

Southern Thailand is home to a long-running separatist insurgency involving ethnic Malay Muslims who reject direct rule from Bangkok. There is evidence that al-Qaida-related activists in Indonesia and Malaysia have tried to fan and exploit this conflict in the past.

A collapse, or prolonged paralysis, of the central civil authority would be an invitation to further polarising unrest. And the last thing world needs is another battlefront with militant Islam.

In other words, a state failure.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

—

May 2010

Dr. Neric O. Acosta
Secretary General and Interim Executive Director
Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
7-B Amorsolo Street,
San Lorenzo Village,
Makati City 1223 Philippines

Subject: Continuing abuse of power by Mr. Abhisit Vejajiva in Thailand

Dear Dr. Acosta,

We are a group of concerned scholars, civil society organisations, human rights organisations, students, and individuals who are writing to you to raise your concerns on the recent bloody crackdown by the Democrat Party-led government under Mr. Abhisit Vejajiva. Democrat Party is a member of the Council of Asian Liberal and Democrats (CALD).

There has been confirmed reports by international journalists and rights organisations of the military personnel under the order of Mr. Abhisit have been firing live ammunitions into the crowd of the opposition protest group, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) also known as the “red shirt” resulting in the death of at least 22 unarmed protesters and at least 200 protesters injured, and the number is rising as we speak. The government is also putting military snipers on skyscrapers around the area targeting at the protesters.

There are also reports of at least 10 Thai and international journalists being injured via gunshot by the military. There are roughly 10,000 protesters in the site, women and children among them and the government has the policy to crackdown on these protesters. This atrocity adds up to the death tolls in the 10 April 2010 crackdown by the government which claimed the lives of 20 protesters and more than 800 peoples injured.

In the past two months, Thailand has been ruled under the grip of the emergency decree giving the absolute power to the Prime Minister to summon and arrest anyone critical of the government. On 13 May 2010, Mr. Abhisit has signed an order in imposing State of Emergency in 15 provinces in the country in an attempt to allow Thai peoples to join the protest site in Bangkok. Human Rights Watch has reported that hundreds of opposition politicians, student activists, media workers, and individuals have been summoned by the government for questioning. Furthermore, more than 1,030 political and news website have been summarily shut down under the order of Mr. Abhisit.

We therefore are writing to you to express our utmost concerns about the recent bloody crackdown and for you to take immediate possible action with the leadership of the Democrat Party. The atrocities and excessive uses of forces by prohibit those voicing opposition to his government as committed under Mr. Abhisit will undermined the principles to respect human rights and democracy as respected by CALD. Governments cannot simply shoot guns at its citizens who think different than them.

Furthermore, the continuing abuse of power by Mr. Abhisit is a direct contradiction to the charter of CALD and its Manifesto for Transparency, Accountability and Access to Information which calls for CALD members that “CALD member party must be in consistent with its policies of good governance when it is in power”.

Sincerely yours,

Signatories

The petition will be sent to members of the CALD, including:

Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, member of CALD
Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, member of CALD
Liberal Party of the Philippines, member of CALD
Singapore Democratic Party, member of CALD
Sam Rainsy Party of Cambodia, member of CALD
Inter-Parliamentary Union Secretariat
Liberal International Secretariat

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region

Wassana Nanuam (photo credit)

Wassana Nanuam, a Bangkok Post reporter and columnist specialising in military affairs, has “temporarily” left her job as a co-host of the “Lab Luang Prang” radio show on the state-controlled MCOT‘s FM 100.5 MHz. Siam Report has the details, based on a report in the Thai language daily Khao Sod. Key excerpt:

Khao Sod says the reason Wassana stopped doing the program is because Suthep (Deputy PM, Security) ordered no interviews with “red soldiers”, only interviews with soldiers who support the government. Wassana thinks this situation doesn’t allow her to fulfill her duty as a reporter. Normally, Lab Luang Prang has balanced interviews with soldiers from both colors and sides. But when the government only allows interviews from one side, it doesn’t follow the program objective. It becomes a program that attacks the government opposition, and there are many of these kinds of programs already.

Wassana is not the only one in the media who has faced pressure and intimidation in recent days. Channel 3 reporter Thapanee Eiadseechai also got into hot water over her reporting of the grenade attacks at Silom on 22 April. As far as I know, what got her into trouble was a series of tweets (which have since been removed) on her twitter account documenting the confrontation between police forces and army forces. Khao Sod (in Thai) claims that Channel 3 has ordered Thapanee to stop covering the Bangkok rallies and also to delete all her tweets.

Last year, broadcaster Jom Petpradab caused a stir when he interviewed Thaksin on his radio show, coincidentally also on MCOT’s FM 100.5 MHz (see here and here). According to Jom’s own statement (available here), he resigned from his position at MCOT following the incident because “the government [had] placed substantial pressure on [his] coworkers and [he did] not want them to continue to work in fear of government reprisal.”

Jom now works for Voice TV, a TV station run by Thaksin’s children.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
2. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
3. Suda Rangkupan: Thai Academics Warned for Having an Opinion

The Nation on Sunday’s front page (source: Facebook)

Below is my translation of parts of a short Thai-language article by former Senator Jon Ungpakorn (source: Prachatai).

=====================

Two days after the Tak Bai incident — where more than 70 protesters died after army men arrested them, tied them up, stacked them in several layers on army trucks, and left them in that state for hours as they were transported to an army camp — Thaksin Shinawatra, the Prime Minister, explained this incident to the Senate. I was listening to him. Thaksin began by expressing regrets about the tragedy but later proceeded to give a long-winded explanation of the causes of the incident and to insist that the government was doing the best it could, etc etc. There was absolutely no offer to take responsibility, either personally or collectively as a government, for the consequences.

(หลังจากเกิดเหตุการณ์ตากใบที่มี ผู้ชุมนุมเสียชีวิตกว่า 70 คนจากฝีมือของทหารที่ได้กวาดจับ ผู้ชุมนุม มัดตัว แล้วเอามาวางนอนทับกันหลายชั้นในรถทหารขณะขนย้ายไปยังค่ายทหารเป็นระยะเวลาหลายชั่วโมงจนเกิดการเสียชีวิตดังกล่าว ถัดไปอีกสองวันนายทักษิณ ชินวัตร ในฐานะนายกรัฐมนตรีได้มาชี้แจง เรื่องนี้ต่อวุฒิสภาซึ่งตอน นั้นผมนั่งฟังอยู่ นายทักษิณเริ่มต้นด้วยการกล่าวความเสียใจต่อเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้น แต่หลังจากนั้นก็ร่ายยาวอธิบายความเป็นมาของสถานการณ์ รัฐบาลทำดีที่สุดแล้ว ฯลฯ ไม่มีการแสดงถึงความรับผิดชอบของตนหรือรัฐบาลของตนต่อผลที่เกิดขึ้นแต่อย่างใด)

Last night, at least eleven UDD protesters, low-ranking soldiers and foreign correspondents died and hundreds of protesters and soldiers were injured after the government had ordered the army to crack down on the protesters. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva spoke to the country live on television. He began by expressing regrets about the incident and saying sorry to the families of the deceased and the wounded, but later proceeded to give a long-winded explanation of the causes of the incident and the reasons for the government’s actions, etc etc. There was absolutely no offer to take responsibility, either personally or collectively as a government, for the consequences.

(เมื่อคืนนี้หลังจากที่มีผู้ชุมนุม ฝ่ายนปช.และทหารชั้นผู้น้อย รวมทั้งนักข่าวต่างประเทศ เสียชีวิตไปไม่น้อยกว่า 11 คน ผู้ชุมนุมและทหารบาดเจ็บเป็นร้อย จากผลการปราบผู้ชุมนุมโดย ทหารที่ได้รับคำสั่งจากรัฐบาล ปรากฎว่านายอภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะในฐานะนายกรัฐมนตรีได้มาแถลงต่อประชาชนทางโทรทัศน์ทุกช่อง นายอภิสิทธิ์ได้เริ่มต้นด้วยการกล่าวความเสียใจต่อเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นและต่อครอบครัวผู้ตายและบาดเจ็บ และหลังจากนั้นก็ร่ายยาวอธิบาย ถึงความเป็นมาของสถานการณ์ และความจำเป็นของรัฐบาล ฯลฯ โดยไม่มีการแสดงถึงความรับผิดชอบของตนหรือรัฐบาลของตนต่อผลที่เกิดขึ้นแต่อย่างใด)

[...]

From now on, every time Abhisit looks in the mirror, he will see the face of Thaksin.

(ต่อไปนี้ทุกครั้งที่นายอภิสิทธิ์ มองหน้าตัวเองในกระจกก็ย่อมจะเห็นหน้าของนายทักษิณ)

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’
3. The UN Speaks

Prime Minister Abhisit said he did not want to confront the Army but assigned the scientists who had conducted the test to explain to the officials working on the ground to understand and stop using it.

Ok. This sham device is nothing more than a cheap plastic box, has cost us hundreds of millions of baht, has put the lives of army officers and civilians at great risk, and could lead to arrests of wrong suspects while the real criminals and terrorists freely roam the country.  And the PM meekly said he “did not want to confront the army”? Outrageous.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Authorities Insist GT200 Does Work, The Nation Says No
2. GT200 Conclusion: Big Names Exposed
3. GT200 Dowsing Rod Update: Gen Anupong Bans Further Purchases Pending Investigation

Gen Anupong, Dr Pornthip, Suthep, Abhisit
(Photo credit: 1, 2, 3, 4)

The shocking scandal of the GT200 ‘bomb detector’ continues to be the talk of the town. In my earlier post I already looked at the BBC’s exposure of the scam and the frankly unbelievable responses by PM Abhisit and other people from Thailand’s uppermost echelon. To be honest, I think this whole sorry saga has damaged the credibility of these people beyond repair, implicating a whole range of prominent people from top politicians to a celebrity forensic expert. Lives are being put at profound risk because of the continued use of these voodoo devices. Massive amounts of taxpayers’ money are going down the drain or possibly into someone’s pocket.

Anyway, here is some good news at last. Army chief Anupong Paochinda, who previously dismissed angry reporters as having been bribed to question him over the GT200′s effectiveness, seems to be going through a belated process of enlightenment. The Nation reports:

Army chief General Anupong Paochinda yesterday said he would not allow any Army agencies to make additional purchases of GT200 bomb detectors now that the United Kingdom has issued a warning saying the devices are useless.

“Since there are some doubts, we have to delay the procurement decisions until things become clearer,” Anupong told reporters, adding that his orders would not affect any ongoing purchases of the equipment.

[...]

Anupong, backing down after experts criticised the Army for purchasing useless equipment at relatively high prices, said the Army would conduct scientific tests to prove the equipment’s ability.

“I personally want to know if it really works, because my men on the ground insist it does while experts say it theoretically doesn’t,” he said.

Though it looks like the army may not be able to cancel existing orders, this decision by Gen Anupong is still encouraging. Will the other big names soon realise their horrible mistakes too? We will have to wait and see…

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Authorities Insist GT200 Does Work, The Nation Says No
2. GT200: The Only Remaining Obstacle
3. GT200 Conclusion: Big Names Exposed

PM Abhisit Vejjajiva on his internet Q&A programme, talking about the GT200

If anyone wants an indicator of how low our government has sunk in recent months, there is probably no better one than the fact that The Nation is now talking more sense than the Oxford-educated PM Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The BBC recently conducted an investigation into one of the many types of so-called hand-held “substance detectors” being used by government agencies in a handful of Third World countries including Thailand. The Iraqis are using them at checkpoints to thwart suicide bombers. Thai police forces have them in hand when looking for illegal drugs. Thai troops in the deep south also use them to save people from bombs, for example.

The investigation concluded that the device is completely bogus, consisting of nothing more than cheaply-made plastic and unsophisticated parts. While the model of the detector examined (ADE-651) was different from the ones being used in Thailand (GT200), the UK government has issued a ban on the ADE-651 “and other similar devices” and also arrested the man behind the ADE-651 detector. The BBC makes it clear that no Western government uses these types of detectors. For more information see Bangkok Pundit’s posts here, here and here.

(Click “read the rest of this entry” below to see Thailand’s response.)

In Thailand, netizens and university lecturers have been campaigning against the use of the GT200 for quite a while, but their efforts have proved largely fruitless, with the authorities insisting that the detectors do work reliably and help cut violence in the deep south. The media-friendly Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand has challenged sceptics to observe her team use the device in their daily forensic job.

Now, after the BBC’s revelation, one would expect that the Thai authorities would have seen the truth and stopped using the GT200 by now.  Yet, their responses have been absolutely astonishing, even by the standard of our beloved Thailand.

First we have Anupong the army chief:

In response to reporters’ angry questions about the British-made scanner, Army chief Anupong Paochinda shot back: “Is the company using you to ask these questions?” (The Nation)

Then, another one in the military top brass:

Joint Military Police Civilian Taskforce commander Lt-General Kasikorn Kirisri said the GT200 scanner was very useful in detecting and preventing explosions in the deep South, where violent incidents on an almost daily basis have killed more than 3,900 people to date.

“Not using the bomb detector may affect efforts to restore peace in the deep South,” he warned, adding that there might have been some problems with the detector, but they mostly involved human error. (The Nation)

Then this, a bit more promising but still under the illusion that the GT200 is a real functioning detector:

However, the police believe the bomb detector is not effective enough, with only a 30-40-per-cent reliability factor, which means the chance of it failing is higher than succeeding.

“It is not accurate. If the operator is too close to the target – less than 3 metres – it will not work,” said Pol Senior Sgt-Major Chan Warongpaisit, who regularly operates the equipment in the South. (The Nation)

But what about Dr Pornthip? :

Meanwhile, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, director of the Forensic Science Institute and who always uses the GT200, said the UK had only banned the ADE651.

She said the detector was effective when searching for bombs and even nails under water. (The Nation)

Not to be outdone, our dear Prime Minister in his internet broadcast (Thai language):

[My translation]:

In the past these detectors were purchased. If you ask me whether they have been of any use, I’d say “yes, they have.” But a weakness has been found. As far as I know from talking to people familiar with it, a limit of this device is that it relies on static charges within the body of the user. Hence, sometimes if the user hasn’t had enough rest or is not well-prepared, the detector’s effectiveness will be reduced. So, at the moment, the Office of the Narcotics Control Board is asking for similar detectors, maybe with different names or brands, but which  are battery-operated. They will replace the GT200.

[Original quotation in Thai]:

“ในอดีตเนี่ยมีการซื้ออุปกรณ์ตัวนี้มา ถามว่าได้ประโยชน์มั้ย ก็ได้ประโยชน์ครับ แต่ว่ามีการพบครับว่า มันมีจุดอ่อน คือเครื่องนี้เนี่ย เท่าที่ผมได้มีโอกาสพูดคุยกับผู้ที่เกี่ยวข้อง ก็คือว่า มีจุดอ่อนตรงที่ว่า ยังต้องอาศัยเรื่องของกระแสไฟฟ้าในตัวคนที่ใช้ เพราะฉะนั้นบางทีสภาพของตัวบุคคลที่ไปตรวจนะครับ ถ้า อาจจะพักผ่อนน้อยไป ไม่มีความพร้อมเนี่ย ก็จะทำให้เครื่องนี้เนี่ย ขาดประสิทธิภาพ เพราะฉะนั้นขณะนี้เนี่ย แนวที่ ปปส. ขอดำเนินงาน ก็คืออุปกรณ์ในแบบเดียวกันครับ แต่ว่า อาจจะเรียกว่าคนละยี่ห้อหรือคนละชื่อ ที่มีพลังงานในตัวเอง จะถูกนำมาใช้แทน”

Perhaps the PM had been briefed by some security officials before the programme, and that was probably his only source of information. He should be pretty embarrassed to know that even The Nation sounds more sensible than him. From the same report:

Just like the ADE651, no tests have proved the GT200 to be totally effective.

[...]

Yet, the GT200 failed to detect many bombs in the deep South, which led to several tragic incidents. Last October, two bombs killed two people and injured dozens of others in Yala and Narathiwat provinces after the so-called bomb detector failed to detect any explosive devices in the area. However, military officials say the operators were in an excited state, which prevented the equipment from working properly.

In reality though, bomb detectors like the GT200 have never succeeded in double-blind tests. A test of the equipment conducted for Thai authorities by a sales agent resulted in a “random chance” finding, which meant a sniffer dog would be better at detecting explosives.

A 1999 guideline from the US Justice Department regarding commercial explosive-detection systems said so far, there were no devices that could successfully detect specific materials like explosives as part of controlled double-blind tests.

[...]

An Chulalongkorn University engineer said the bomb detector was being used in the deep South as if it were a magic dowsing rod.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. GT200 Conclusion: Big Names Exposed
2. GT200 Dowsing Rod Update: Gen Anupong Bans Further Purchases Pending Investigation
3. GT200: The Only Remaining Obstacle

PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongteay (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

This government really has become too predictable.

Following a disparaging report by Human Rights Watch, in which the lobby group lambastes the human rights situation in Thailand (see the PPT blog for more information), the government’s chief spin doctor Sathit Wongnongtoey decided to take the matter upon himself and issued an all-too-familiar line of response.

Bangkok Post reports:

PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey yesterday slammed Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) annual report as a distortion, and questioned its sources of information.

[...]

Mr Sathit called into question HRW’s sources of information, and suggested that the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) may have been the source.

[...]

“My observation is that its statement uses similar wording [to the UDD's]. I’m not saying the agency lacks independence but it needs to have sources of information and it may stick to one source,” he said.

Need I say more?

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. When and When Not to Criticise the ‘Foreigners’