A German expert on China said on Tuesday that no country in the world could allow demonstrators with such high potential of violence to rally in its big city without deploying police or armed forces.
Eberhand Sandschneider, director of the Research Institute of the German Council on Foreign Relations made the remarks while discussing the Tibet issue with net users in online chat rooms of German's ARD TV.
Asked what he thought the German government should react if China supports the independence of the southern German state of Bavaria, Sandschneider said the German government will make the same reaction if necessary. The German Government must reject with emphasis any interference in its internal affairs.
If demonstrators go on the rampage on May 1 in Berlin's district of Kreuzberg, vandalizing shops, setting cars on fire, the German authorities would also take rigorous action resolutely, Sandschneider said.
"It is important not just to look at China in a know-it-all manner, we should also hold up a mirror to ourselves occasionally...So what I really try to do is to suggest a change of perspective, which would hopefully lead to the conclusion that one-sided observation is not helpful and taking a solely critical view of the action by the Chinese forces may miss the fact," Sandschneider added.
On the same day, online discussions on the issue were also held on the website of the Cologne-based Westdeutscher Rundfunk broadcaster.
"I think the approach of the (Chinese) government is not so bad. What country would act differently if territorial integrity is threatened," a 27-year-old net user who registered as Andy Duisberg said.
Certainly there are problems in China with human rights, Duisberg said, but it is a great achievement of the (Chinese) government to hold such a large country with all ethnic groups living together, Duisberg said.
And it is an achievement that hardly anyone suffers from hunger in China, he added.
from prachatai website comment
คุณ vk ค่ะ ขออภัยด้วยน่ะค่ะ ที่เอาข้อความของคุณมาลงโดยที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตไว้ก่อนล่วงหน้า หวังว่าคุณคงไม่ได้ถือสาใช่ไหมค่ะ ขอบคุณน่ะค่ะ สำหรับข้อมูลเหล่านี้
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
German scholar, net surfers discuss Lhasa riot
Canadian tourists tell of atrocities by rioters in Lhasa
Three Canadian tourists who had been in Lhasa have told of the atrocities committed by rioters last Friday in Lhasa, Tibet, Canada's newspaper The Toronto Star reported Tuesday.
John Kenwood, 19, from Victoria B.C., said that he witnessed a motorcyclist "being pummelled unconscious by a mob hurling chunks of pavement as big as bricks."
Kenwood said he saw the man drenched in blood after being beaten by "15 men carrying what appeared to be two-meter long, silver poles."
The Canadian youth also said that Lhasa's main street, Beijing Road, was "strewn with garbage and the burnt-out hulks of torched vehicles."
Susan Wetmore, another Canadian tourist who had been stranded in the chaos, said some of what she had seen in Tibet "was pretty ugly... pretty ugly."
The 59-year old consultant said she was so grateful to a Chinese cab driver "who literally risked his life" to get her to Lhasa's Gonggar airport.
Despite the shocks and fears they experienced in Tibet, all the tourists told The Toronto Star that they were taken good care of by the Chinese government and local Tibetan people.
The Toronto Star also carried a story of a Canadian tourist rescuing a young man from the hands of the mob.
The rescuer, Justin Winfield from Toronto, said he saw a crowd of rioters beating a young man and two women.
Winfield said he intervened and the angry mobs stopped their attack, but the man was already unconscious, lying on the ground.
He then lifted the man to his feet, and helped him stumble toward a hospital. He took along the two young women, one of whom had lost several teeth.
At the hospital, Winfield said, he saw half a dozen victims with cuts and bruises from beatings.
On the way back to his hotel, he saw at least 15 stores burned or damaged. "They torched the roof of the store across from us. It's just a few gutted walls," he said.
On March 14, riots involving beating, smashing, looting and burning broke peace in Lhasa.
Rioters set fires at more than 300 locations, including residences and 214 shops, smashed and burned 56 vehicles, and attacked schools, banks, hospitals, shops, government offices, utilities and state media offices.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Tuesday that the Lhasa riot was organized, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai Lama clique, which exposed once again the separatist nature of the Dalai Lama clique and the hypocritical and fraudulent nature of its so-called "peace" and "non-violence" claims.
from prachatai comment
คุณ vk ค่ะ ขออภัยด้วยน่ะค่ะ ที่เอาข้อความของคุณมาลงโดยที่ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตไว้ก่อนล่วงหน้า หวังว่าคุณคงไม่ได้ถือสาใช่ไหมค่ะ ขอบคุณน่ะค่ะ สำหรับข้อมูลเหล่านี้
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Who says Thai and Burmese democracy cannot be compared?
Supalak Ganjanakhundee
13 March 2008
Pick to Post
Many pro-coup activists who claime they definitely love democracy are bitter whenever any people compare Thai political development with neighboring Burma.
Now there is a tongue-lashing again when the Spoke Authoritative of the State Peace and Development Council Minister for Information Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan gave a lecture to United Nations Special Envoy to Burma Ibrahim Gambari when the latter was in the trouble country on March 7 that Burmese democracy has nothing difference from Thai democracy.
Kyaw Hsan talked to Gambari in the context that the UN demanded the junta to allow opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to participate in the politics.
The junta mouthpiece New Light of Myanmar published full lecture on March 8; the following is a part which compared the two constitution drafting processes;
Kyaw Hsan: "Regarding the process of drawing a constitution, I would like to present you some points about Thailand's drafting of its 17th constitution. Thai National Security Council firstly selected 2,000 persons for the conference to draft a constitution. The 2,000 persons had to elect 200 from among themselves and the list of the elected 200 persons was submitted to the National Security Council. And the National Security Council selected and appointed 100 of them as representatives to a conference for drafting a constitution. Then, the 100-member conference for drafting the constitution had to elect 25 outsiders as members for the committee for drafting the constitution, and the National Security Council had to select 10 members. And they were not to be the ones who were in the membership of a political party in last two years. The 35-member committee for drafting the constitution drafted and submitted the draft to the conference for drafting the constitution.
In our country (Burma), more than 1000 people's representatives took part in the process of adopting the principles. And based on the principles, the 54-member commission for drafting the constitution drafted the constitution. So, there is a great difference between the two countries in taking time, holding discussions, and mobilizing representatives from the four corners of the country.
In Thailand, the upper chamber is made up of 150 representatives. Among them, a representative was elected from each of the 76 provinces. The commission for holding elections had to select and appoint 74 seats from intellectuals and intelligentsia, State service personnel and eminent persons from the private sector. Twenty-five percent of our Pyidaungsu Hluttaw representatives will be directly appointed Tatmadaw member representatives, whereas directly-appointed representatives make up nearly 50 percent in their country.
Now, Thai people have approved and started to practice the constitution of Thailand. But, none of the candidates of People Power Party and the opposition Democrat Party had the right to participate in the (constitution drafting) process. To make it clearer, in Iraq, Shiite militants who opposed the US, and Sunni militants who had links with Al Qaeda had no right to participate in the process of drafting a constitution. Similarly, in Afghanistan, Talebans had no right to draft the constitution. We haven't heard any objection to these events by those persons and organizations who are objecting us. But in drafting the constitution in our country, many are criticizing and pointing out that certain persons were not among the representatives in the process. It is not reasonable."
Who want to argue him, please...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
From October 14th to October 6th to Bloody May:The Unlearned Lessons of Our History
CJ Hinke
20 February 2008
Article
Report on the Seminar and Personal Reminiscences, Thammasat University
Coordinator
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
http://facthai.wordpress.com
email: facthai@gmail.com
I was fresh to Thailand in 1989 and attended the democracy demonstrations at Sanam Luang against a Thai Army general self-appointed to Prime Minister, Suchinda Krapayoon, in May 1992. Although many people saw Chamlong Srimuang as their leader, I only ever saw him as a political opportunist. I saw Chamlong arrested to safety with his followers at Phanfa Bridge. This was when I sent my Thai family home.
An interesting point raised at today's seminar was that Chamlong was identified disguised in sunglasses among the Village Scouts who were party to the lynchings and atrocities at Thammasat in 1976; politicians, particularly those coming from the police or military, are rarely completely clean. Did he take part in the bloodshed?
We shared water and fruit with the soldiers through the razor wire. Firing from automatic weapons began in the air. Then the guns in Ratchadamnoen were were levelled at us. The soldiers were all so young and all from upcountry. They were told the demonstrators were c/Communists--sound famiilar?
In various situations, I was in groups of people who were fired upon five times. I managed to crawl and run to safety, my clothing stained with the blood of the fallen. I was alone in a Banglampoo side-street with soldiers closing from both ends. Several foreign onlookers from Khao San were killed and I might have joined them had not a shophouse grate been slid back and a local resident hauled me literally by the neck to safety until they had passed; there would have been no witnesses.
I saw the fallen heaved onto canvas covered army trucks (dead, wounded? dead now) just past Phanfa Bridge. Three lorries and one waiting, dozens of bodies certainly, perhaps more than 100. I saw the Ratchadamnoen Nok police station and the Lottery Bldg set ablaze. From the safety of the Rattanakosin Hotel, we saw loaded hijacked buses attempt to breach the lines--all aboard were shot dead. Even a petrol truck, which didn't go off.
Having medical training, I helped Sirira Hospitalj and Mahidol medical volunteers tend the wounded. A Thai photog friend on the next balcony was killed by a shot to the head, probably occasioned by his flash. Perhaps the most horrifying for me were the courageous and stupid young people marching up Ratchadamnoen carrying the Thai flag and pictures of the king and queen; they were shot and killed by soldiers through these symbols of the Thai nation. Their blood was on the Thai flag and the Thai monarchs.
We tried to hide about 20 people in our bathroom but the searches were too thorough and we saw them kicked and rifle-butted down the stairs to be arrested. I need to honour compatriots and longtime journos Bertil Lintner and Philip Blenkinsop for their determination on this.
I don't believe the official dead and missing figures; they just don't tally with what I saw with my own eyes. Black May was the catalyst when I decided I was committed to this country because Thai people could be counted upon to defend their freedom. Pretty simplistic, eh, but I still seem to hold a lot of hope for this country, though to no apparent reason.
The conclusions of today's Thammasat seminar is that Oct 14 and Oct 6 live on (thanks to Uncle Samak!) because these were mass movements formed from the educated classes. The perception is that Black May was a movement of the common people; that was not my experience: I think that most May 1992 demonstrators were middle-class Bangkok. In fact, Black May was propagated by mobile phones; this was not an assembly of poor people. Most people think the lessons and sacrifices of Black May have been forgotten; unfortunately, I think this is a true statement, with the possible exception of those of us who lived it.
Today's seminar was attended by several hundred veterans of 1973, 1976 and 1992 and, after all the intervening years, many of us were still moved to tears. Many of my friends and colleagues over the years had been gaoled, exiled overseas or fled to the Isaan and Southern jungles. I, certainly, lost several good friends in 1992 and some of myself, too.
It took more than 30 years for the October Memorial on Ratchadamnoen to become a reality because government does not want to acknowledge its shame. This signifies a basic lack of recognition for historical truth. Writing history is a political struggle to which the power elite will never yield. Thai people, and people everywhere, need access to their history without distortion or censorship.
Rather, politicians seek to reinvent history by deluding a gullible public. Most politicians try to spin their roles in important historical events as greater than they may have been. In Thailand, our Prime Minister is trying to convince us that history never happened. Such statements trivialise the struggle for social justice in Thailand by relying on propaganda.
If the PM saw the death of "one unlucky guy", it puts him at the scene of the massacre. He has eyes to see and ears to hear so he could hardly be unaware of the firing of heavy weapons into the Tha Prachan campus. He saw, he heard and he did made absolutely no attempt to stop the violence.
Here are the numbers. In the October 14, 1973 period, 77 people were killed and 857 wounded. On October 6, 1976, around 500 were killed and 11,000 arrested. These figures come from Phuket resident Nicholas Bennett, a member of the Coordinating Group for Religious Studies in Society. CGRS had become the first indigenous human rights organisation in Thailand and completed its report.
Not only do these lies eliminate the Prime Minister's chances for effective leadership of Thailand, but they poison any aspirations he may have for appointment to His Majesty's Privy Council. It takes a big man to retreat from a lie, to say he was wrong, to apologise to the Thai people, the Royal Family and Buddhism. It would befit his position for the Prime Minister to do so.
When I lectured at Peking University in the summer following Black May, my students took me to quiet places to talk about Ratchadamnoen. The world, of course, remembers only Tiananmen and the young man who stopped a tank. Our Ratchadamnoen was at least 100 times worse and no one remembers but us who were there.
Why does this foreigner care what happens in Thailand? Because my heart is Thai and this is where I take a stand. Because I care about the future of my country.
There are October heroes and there are May heroes. I shall never forget the young man gunned down before Democracy Monument, his blood soaking through our country's flag.
We need to thank Uncle Samak for reminding us how important our freedom is, and that Thai means free. When history is censored, our future is predicated on a lie.
Addenda. This is a link to the original CNN interview:
Debate over the Oct 6 history
Kem Issara
20 February 2008
Article
Debating on the 6 October events has become a political tool of both leftists and rightists in the present game of post anti-Thaksin and anti-coup struggle but it will not shed any light for later generations unless facts were learned and shared by a majority of the people-not a handful of the October Generation, said academics at a seminar yesterday. 
Thanet Aphornsuvan, dean of Faculty of Liberal Arts, said the 14 October 1973 and the 6 October 1976 events have yet to become history, "It is still a struggle not a settled history; it is not agreed by the nation what really happened, such as the state-written history of, say, Sukhothai."
Mr Thanet, also a historian, said Thai society could not be perfect if the two events and the May massacre sixteen years later remained only a legend or memories of a certain group of people.
Kanokrat Lertchoosakul, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, said the rise of Samak Sundaravej as the unexpected prime minister of Thailand has caught the former students who backed Thaksin camp off guard, but has even more enraged their colleagues who were against Thaksin.
The heated debate on the October incidents outside the "October commemorative season" was not born in a vacuum but was embraced as a political tool in the context of those who fight against and those who support the Thaksin camp and those for and those against the coup, said Ms Kanokrat, also a Ph.D student of the London School of Economics. 
The more Mr Samak defended the October issue, the stronger it might be for those who would like to topple the Samak government, she suggested.
However, the lecturer noted that resurrecting the October history simply to serve certain political purposes in the present context would not eventually lead to any lessons learned by Thai society, especially the younger generation.
"Certainly, it has not been easy and in fact has been painful for both rightists and leftists to regain a foothold in Thai society. But we still need it to be a public issue not a story or legend told by a limited group of people. The history of October has yet to be written beyond the history of violence or the number of the deaths; (history resurrection) needs to be a process of public learning," said Ms Kanokrat.
Sirote Klampaiboon, a Ph D candidate at the East West Center, said 14 and 6 October was a history of the bruised, whose deaths that could still be resurrected, but the May history was a real dead death.
"Why is there a fuss about what Samak said about October, but not the May massacre which took place while Samak was Deputy Prime Minister in the Suchinda government? Because those who died in that event were the so-called proletariat and the rural poor while the October deaths were heroes, since they came from the student class," challenged Mr Sirote.
Talking about the 6 October events was a political tool rather than a quest for truth, "Those who defend the students also focus only on the fact that the protestors were not socialists or communists but innocent students and democracy lovers, which might not be the case for several who died or fled," said the historian.
"The post-May events have led to a compromise between an elite group in Thai society, including the so-called October students, and they have departed from the true objective of political reform, or army reform and decentralization, but have become part of the ruling class," said Mr Sirote.
Monday, February 18, 2008
WHY MEN WEAR CLOTHES
Have a fun!
Very cute!
Early experiences that convince the male to clothe himself..... 
If this brightened your day
Don't let it stop here
Pass it on with a smile
keep spreading the cheer!
From the city, via the jungle, to defeat:: the 6th Oct 1976 bloodbath and the C.P.T.
Ji Giles Ungpakorn
18 February 2008
Article
We all know that Prime Minister Samak Sundarawej was lying to the CNN when he claimed that he was not involved in the 6th October massacre and that only one person died. Before the event, he was closely associated with the Tank Corps Radio Station, which called for right-wing thugs to kill left-wing students. Samak was also very close to the Royally sponsored "Village Scouts". After the event, and the coup on the same day, he became Minister of the Interior and has lied about the massacre to this day. For those who are unaware of the details of the event, this is part of a chapter on the 6th October.
From the city, via the jungle, to defeat: the 6th Oct 1976 bloodbath and the C.P.T.
Ji Giles Ungpakorn
First published in Radicalising Thailand: New Political Perspectives. (2003) G.J. Ungpakorn -Contributing editor. Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University.
Abstract
The blood-stained shadow of the ruling class massacre of students on the 6th October 1976 and the subsequent collapse of the Communist Party still have important effects on modern Thai politics. This massacre marked the start of the eradication of the Thai Left from both official history and present day formal politics. The process was completed after the collapse of the Communist Party in the mid 1980s. The manner in which ex-Left-wing activists have been rehabilitated back into society after the 6th October, has paved the way for gradual democratic reforms, in a form which does not challenge the real power and privilege of the ruling elite. The result is a corrupt parliamentary system devoid of any socialist politics. This chapter presents details of the 6th October massacre, provides a Marxist critique of the Communist Party and examines the present day implications and lessons from the collapse of the Left in that period.
In the early hours of 6th October 1976, Thai uniformed police, stationed in the grounds of the National Museum, next door to Thammasat University, destroyed a peaceful gathering of students and working people on the university campus under a hail of relentless automatic fire. At the same time a large gang of ultra-Right-wing "informal forces", known as the Village Scouts, Krating-Daeng (or "Red Gaurs") and Nawapon, indulged in an orgy of violence and 
brutality towards anyone near the front entrance of the university. Students and their supporters were dragged out of the university and hung from the trees around Sanam Luang; others were burnt alive in front of the Ministry of "Justice" while the mob danced round the flames. Women and men, dead or alive, were subjected to the utmost degrading and violent behaviour. One woman had a piece of wood shoved up her vagina. Hopefully she was already dead. Village Scouts dragged dead and dying students from the front of the campus and dumped them on the road, where they were finished-off. A young man plunged a sharp wooden spike into the corpses while a boy urinated over them. Not only did the state's "forces of law and order" do nothing to halt this violence, some uniformed members of the police force were filmed cheering-on the crowd [i].
From before dawn that morning, students had been prevented from leaving the campus by police who were stationed at each gate. The operation was what Thais call "slamming the door to beat the cat". Inside the sealed university campus violence was carried out by heavily armed police from the Crime Suppression Division, the Hua Hin airborne division of the Border Patrol Police and the Special Forces Unit of the Metropolitan Police. Un-armed women and men students who had fled initial rounds of heavy gunfire to take refuge in the Commerce Faculty building were chased out at gun point and made to lie face down on the grass of the football field, without shirts. Uniformed police fired heavy machine guns over their heads. The hot spent shells burnt the skin on their bare backs as they lay on the field. Other students who tried to escape from campus buildings via the rear entrance to the university, were hunted down and shot without mercy. Wimolwan, a Mahidol University nursing student and volunteer member of "Nurses for the Masses" was shot dead in the Chaopraya river, at the back of Thammasat, while she and her friends tried to swim to safety. At least 5 medical and nursing students from Mahidol University who were volunteer members of Nurses for the Masses, were killed on that day (Friends of Mahidol 1997). The invading police showed no respect towards anyone found in the temporary field hospital in the basement of the Commerce Faculty. Some seriously wounded students who were lucky enough to make it to a single ambulance that had been called to the campus, had to wait for hours without proper medical help or even water, until the police allowed the ambulance to leave the campus. Volunteer student nurses tried to keep the wounded alive by feeding them their own saliva.
Examples of courage and the struggle for human dignity shone through the violence and brutality of that day. Auntie Mien, a middle-aged machine shop worker from Makasan Railway yard, was sheltering in the Commerce building along with many students. As a trade unionist she had opposed the military dictatorship of Tanom and Prapat since before it was overthrown during the 14th October 1973 uprising, 3 years previously. At that time she had encouraged her husband to also take an interest in politics. On the 14th October 1973 her husband was shot dead while protesting against the military dictatorship. Mien was in Thammasat on 6th October 1976 because she wanted to protest against the return of ex-dictator Field Marshal Tanom from exile in Singapore. It was Tanom whom she held responsible for her husband's death. In fact all those present on the university campus on the morning of 6th October were there as part of a protest against Tanom's return and the threat of a new dictatorship.
As Auntie Mien was rudely herded out of the Commerce building at gun-point, she refused to allow police to steal her hand bag and all its belongings. She had previously seen men in uniform systematically kick and rob the youngsters as they left the building. She also refused to bow her head down as ordered; she felt that she had done nothing wrong.
Pachern and his wife risked their lives to help wounded students. When the police finally found him they beat him with their guns and kicked and punched him. Sixteen years later Pachern's wife and fourteen year old son were killed by the military in the bloody May uprising of 1992. Such are the lengths to which the ruling class are prepared to go to cling on to power. Such are the lengths to which many brave Thais are prepared to go to fight for freedom and justice.
Many of those who died on that day gave up their lives to save others. The student security force, which was set up by necessity to protect peaceful student demonstrations from violent attacks, took heavy casualties. This force was necessarily armed because on previous occasions Right-wing goon squads had shot at, and thrown bombs into, unarmed student gatherings causing many deaths. For example, in March 1975, at Siam Square, four people died and 24 were injured after a bomb was thrown into a demonstration against U.S. military bases. Socialists, and prominent leaders of student, worker and farmer organisation were systematically murdered in that period. On each occasion, the police did nothing to stop such violence. In fact there is evidence that organisations linked to the security forces helped to organise such attacks [ii]. Only one minute after the Siam Square incident, the Tank Corps radio station announced news of the bomb attack, as though it had helped to plan it and Krating-Daeng thugs were seen using police radios (Morell & Samudavanija 1981:167).
On the morning of 6th October 1976 the brave members of the student guard fired their meagre collection of small hand guns in a last minute attempt to delay the invading hoards, while thousands of their friends escaped out through the back of the university towards the river. Their task had always been to fight off the Krating-Daeng and other groups of thugs, not take on the armed might of the state. They were heavily out gunned and most of them eventually died.
Apart from the student guard, student leaders like Thongchai Winichakul and Somsak Jeamteerasakul also risked their lives to save others. As the football field at the centre of the Thammasat campus came under sustained heavy fire from the police, they continued to give speeches from the makeshift open-air platform, erected at one end of the field. Since the police could not see all the football ground at this time, the aim was to draw police fire towards the open-air assembly area while people took refuge in the Commerce and Journalism buildings. Towards the end, Thongchai had to continue his speech while lying on the ground as the stage itself came under heavy fire. There, he repeatedly asked the police to stop shooting. He was ignored.
Shopkeepers and ordinary house-holders around the back entrance of Thammasat tried to hide students from the police as they escaped via the river. One Chinese shopkeeper, in his 60s, saved half a dozen students from arrest by pulling them off the streets to hide in his shop. On many occasions the police threatened to open fire on shops and houses which sheltered students. The students were not kicked-out by these good people; they left so as not to bring trouble to their hosts. Other examples of acts of courage included the volunteer medical students from Sirirat Hospital, who came across the river by boat to tend the wounded in Thammasat University under fire.
The director of Channel 9 state-owned TV station, Sampasiri Wirayasiri, observed what was happening at first hand that morning. "It was our sons and daughters that were being murdered. How could they do such things? I didn't have a gun. My only way to fight this injustice was to film what was happening, so everyone could see the truth" (I.T.V. 1999a). Sampasiri was sacked from his job immediately afterwards.
That morning thousands of students were arrested in Thammasat while many more escaped. Their friends, relatives and supporters watched the scenes of brutality on Thai TV screens in horror before they were blanked-out by government censors. Even some low-ranking police officers, especially ones from the local Chanasongkram police station, were shocked. These officers initially tried to help the students escape from the campus before their units were replaced by hardened units of the Boarder Patrol Police.
RSS Feed (xml)