Thaksin 46 Billion Down

KD, like many in these regions, I believe you are looking at Thaksin through rose (red) coloured glasses.

As this recent court case has demonstrated, Shin Corp (and Thaksin) seemed to benefit hugely from a number of policy and legislative decisions from the Thaksin government in the period between 2001 and 2005. On any level, he was therefore justly criticized.

The sale of Shin Corp was facilitated by a change in the law (instituted by Thaksin) in the few days preceding the deal. There were also murky transactions involving offshore shelf companies, the total impact of which was that the Thaksin family did not pay any tax on the huge profit made on the deal. Again, I would suggest criticism was well justified.

In the ensuing turmoil, he then held a snap election, and despite being returned with a huge majority (given that the opposition parties refused to participate in the election), he was still unable to form a government due to the fact that in many seats where there was a sole candidate (his), they failed to receive the minimum required 20% of the votes.

He then quit, and said he was taking a break from politics.

Currently, the minority opposition has assumed (not usurped) power in exactly the same way that Thaksin did in 2001, and his party did in 2007 - by forming coalitions.

It is a very subjective judgment as to whether Thaksin is "purely wicked" (is that an oxymoron ). In my view, whatever he "did for Thailand" was done with his own interests first and foremost in mind. And at the same time, he managed to do some wicked things amongst the good things.

His lasting legacy will be to have awoken the poor and under-represented to their rights (and hopefully, responsibilities). But that ongoing process no longer requires his further input, which (again in my opinion) can only be divisive and negative for Thailand.

In my view, he is not a champion of the people - he is a thief, liar, (indirect) murderer, and above all, a champion of the Shinawatra clan.

jackspratt wrote:

rufus wrote:What I can say, (I hope), is that I suggest you look at the significance of April 2006 and the results thereafter.

OK, that has pointed me somewhere, and some very interesting reading. Thanks for that.

If we assume the court was politically appointed (I am still mulling that one - and you have taken a wide interpretation of "political", which I do agree with), does it necessarily follow that their decision was a poor one?

Clearly, as stated earlier, I don't believe it was, even if one argues that it was tainted ie would a panel of independent overseas judges come to a different conclusion, based on the evidence presented?

Khun Jack, I was referring to 'if we assume...' part of your quote.

jackspratt wrote:My point was pretty clear Tilo.

I said overseas, and independent - pressure is not evidence.

Khun Jack, I was referring to the earlier phrase 'If we assume...' not the overseas and independent part of it.

But, what is this about a panel of overseas and independent judges? This red herring has nothing to do with anything. Who is to say 'overseas and independent judges' would not be subject to influence and pressure in assessing evidence? Besides which, Thailand is a sovereign nation that will not be inviting outsiders in to make a verdict for them.

As mentioned earlier, this is about power. Whether Thaksin is a good or bad person who will leave a positive or a negative legacy does not matter. Who will wield power does matter. That's all this is about.

Thanks for that clarification Tilo.

My "red herring" about an overseas judging panel was certainly hypothetical, but no more so than the suggestion that the Thai panel may have been subject to pressure (political or otherwise) to achieve a particular result. They may, or they may not have been - we will probably never know.

As far as Thaksin is concerned, he still does matter - he is causing considerable division within the country for (what I believe are) his own selfish ends. No surprise there really.

As I have said before, the Reds have a just cause - it would have more public legitimacy if they weren't seen as been run by the grand puppet master.

The question of power will not change much in the near future, until a major event occurs - and then probably not for some time after. One would hope (although I am not all that confident) that the old power structures are dismantled, or at least substantially modified. The most important of which would be the armed forces staying in their barracks, and being subject to civilian control.

Now that is a happy prospect I could accept without any pressure applied.

I hate to get all biblical, but Galatians 6:7 springs to mind.

$1.6bn to be seized from ex-Thailand PM

More than $1.6 billion worth of assets will be seized from Thailand's former prime minister after an appeal request was rejected by the country's Supreme Court.

Of the 119 judges who attended a closed vote on the appeal request, 103 rejected it...........

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... ion=justin