• 
• 

Published on January 13, 2008

This article included some of the history of Carly Reisig during her stay in Mae Hong Son's Pai district.

This included the facts that she had hit a policeman in the past and had also been involved in some other fracas.

I included those facts because in the Thai context they could be relevant. I also had to ensure the story was even-handed. I was writing on the basis that Carly Reisig would be given a fair and level playing field.

I now of course realise that despite an extensive background covering similar cases in Thailand I was being rather optimistic, perhaps even naive.

While the facts presented were true, they have been wrongly taken in a malicious way by many, including "long-term resident expert foreigners", as a reason to justify the attack on the two young Canadians.

As a journalist one is compelled to give both sides of the story. So I also included statements from witnesses interviewed by a colleague, who claimed Reisig started the fight.

What the journalist cannot convey sometimes is his opinion of whether the witnesses are telling the truth or show immediately what links these witnesses have to the police.

I am reminded that no witnesses would go to court and testify that they saw Police Sergeant Somchai Wisetsingh shoot two British tourists dead in 2004. I am also reminded of the vicious stories put about concerning Vanessa Arscott.

I am very concerned at several aspects of this case:

1) The police claiming that Reisig was pregnant and this had angered a jealous foreign boyfriend.

2) The claims by the police shooter that he had been out of town before the shooting, when other witnesses were saying the officer was drinking heavily that night in Pai.

3) The threats to prosecute Reisig for assault on police.

4) The automatic bail for the police gunman.

5) The fact that local police are investigating themselves.

6) The claims that the gun had discharged three times accidentally.

Reisig has not asked me to apologise, nor would she, but I would like to tell Carly publicly that, having seen how this case is progressing, I am sorry for including facts which are being used against her and which after all have not helped her in what will by a very trying battle to come and which certainly do not give anyone justification for these atrocious shootings.

Andrew Drummond

Bangkok

..........

Abhisit correct to avoid Supreme Court fight

Re: "Democrat leader must not throw in the towel", Letters, January 12.

I am somewhat confused as to the writer's logic in disagreeing with Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva's request for one of his party's members to withdraw complaints filed with the Supreme Court.

On the contrary, this time I admire Abhisit's actions, which show his leadership qualities. Irrespective of the outcome, his action of dissociating himself from such complaints, which have an element of self-interest, has shown the public that it was not his long-established party that initiated the complaints, which many view as frivolous and smacking of a defeatist syndrome. Furthermore, he has shown himself as not dictatorial, simply requesting his members to refrain from frustrating the outcome of this election, especially when the Election Commission is in the process of determining its outcome.

I always believe that if you are not in the party with the largest number of seats won, the rule of "silence is golden" should apply until the formation of a government by the party with the most votes becomes wobbly. The public will sympathise with you and regard you, leader of a formidable party, as a true gentleman and not a poor loser.

Sir, I humbly submit that Abhisit's latest action has uplifted the image of the Democrat Party immensely. It is about time the party became less influenced by the old guard, predominantly from the South. The time for change in the party is now.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

..........

Why the bother over avid shopper's return?

Let my late father the general be my witness in so far as I have never been in the slightest way interested in the nasty, dirty and sordid world that passes itself off as politics. However, I have watched dear friends' lives become traumatised by the fetid world of politics in this country.

I came here for the smiles and uncluttered nature of life; to now have to watch each and every day present itself as a new profusion of unpleasantness as shrivelled old men scheme distastefully in quite frankly very unseemly attempts to get their hands on some power is simply too, too much.

Imagine my horror then when as well as this I have to watch an individual of no real national significance sweep into the country as if she is the reincarnation of Cleopatra and wants all eyes to fall on her.

Why, why, why? Has this woman said anything of merit or value? Has she ever done anything of virtue for the country? Does she give freely of her time for those in need or for charity?

Please inform me if I am in error, but all she cares to do is shop, in Singapore, London, Hong Kong, indeed anywhere, whether it be land or labels. That is the sum of her. And at this time, when decent people rightly restrain themselves, taking all your children on a no-holes-bared [sic: ed] shopping frenzy to "show one is back in town" is the height of bad taste.

Are we to be subjected to a tedious media feeding frenzy of what this individual does every moment of every day for the next three, four or five months? Please, no! She should remember that she is indicted and on bail facing high charges of state. If she had any breeding whatsoever she would stay at home and behave appropriately rather than gadding about town seeking "look at me I'm back" attention and indulging in conspicuous consumption when the nation's attention is rightly focused on a much-loved and missed person who was of substantial and real value to the Kingdom.

Catherine Chobley-Dickson

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com