Thaksin 46 Billion Down

[Laan Yaa Mo]

It is the way they got rid of him that stinks (judicial decisions, illegal yellow shirt intervention, military coup et al), all directed against Thaksin and his supporters. No-else outside his group, who might have been guilty of the same 'crimes', came under the same scrutiny. Take Sondhi for one example of someone who escaped any judicial condemnation and penalty. Why?

The focus was on getting rid of Thaksin, not on fairness, corruption or legalities. You know that as well as I do.

It is about power, and who wields it, not on what Thaksin might have alleged to have done, or had done, in the past.

[rufus]

Jack, I have already told you where to go and what to look for in order to be bable to judge the im[artiality of the judges. I am not going to dot the "i"s"and cross the "t"s as I assume you are capable of doing your own web searches. To repeat - look at the origins, geographical and political, of the judges; look at the dates when they were appointed; look at their associations with Prem, (and others who cannot be mentioned).
I assume you are aware of the fact that it is even illegal in Thailand to criticise the decision of the cout and the judiciary itself? Hence not too much can be discussesd on this board.

[rufus]

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

[jackspratt]

rufus I have done extensive google searches on this issue eg "thailand supreme court judges thaksin trial" and "thailand Supreme Court Chairman Sukharom", and none of them reveal the names of the judges on the panel, let alone their origins, appointment dates or relationships.

In your previous post you said:

Jack I could certainly provide evidence and the post would last about 5 minutes. I suggest you do a little bit of homework and look at the providence of the judges, at who appointed them and when and also at their geographical background.

which is hardly pointing me to anywhere.

I am not naive as to the varied and questionable backgrounds of some of the lower court judges - however, I have not read anything thusfar (which is not much) which might impugn the reputations of those in the Supreme Court.

I am also aware that those senior judges are appointed by an individual, a process that no doubt Prem is involved in.

[jackspratt]

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?

[Laan Yaa Mo]

[quote="
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?[/quote]

Or the pressure exerted!

[jackspratt]

My point was pretty clear Tilo.

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

[bumper]

Religion and politics.

So far everything that has happened in the nine years in Thailand has in the end actually effected me very little.

Based on thE activities in Bangkok last might I would say the first line of the new Novel has been written now.

[KHONDAHM]

Putting aside for a moment the coup, the "selective" prosecution of Thaksin, and the general unfairness of it all, it amazes me that people on this forum are happy to overlook the criminality and unjust enrichment which appears to have been clearly demonstrated in this case.

Not to mention the numerous other transgressions, including assets concealment when he first became PM, the crackdown on the free press and government institutions during his tenure, the extra-judicial murders, the call for "revolution" during the Songkran riots, Pastrygate, etc etc etc.

If Thailand is to progress, it must start somewhere in terms of bringing to justice all the blatant criminals parading as politicians, police, armed forces, businessmen, etc. Complain if you like that it hasn't happened thusfar, but please don't say Thaksin doesn't deserve it because his won the most seats in a couple of elections.

I pass no judgment at all on Thaksin without knowing all the facts. As you pointed out, we may not ever know ALL the facts. Hence, I am completely neutral as to his guilt or innocence despite the verdict.

I admit to being biased to give him the benefit of the doubt because of the many positive things he has done for the poor. I have witnessed the fruits of his efforts first-hand. I also recall him being hammered for his ownership of Shin Corp throughout his first term - so he sold it - and then he was hammered even more. So, he offered to step down and also held a snap election. He still won decidedly despite the opposition's boycott and the "no vote" ballots. These examples and his persistent efforts to let the people decide are not the behavior of a purely wicked man.

Bluntly speaking, I do not give a rat's doot about whether or not he deserved it. I care about whether or not the will of the people is respected. Clearly, iif the minority opposition was able to usurp and hold power, it has not been respected.

Give the people their vote, I say! =D>

[parrot]

After I started reading some of the info at asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog (add the www.) and the many links to other sites that report on Thai politics, I decided that there were far too many shenanigans going on in the local political scene for an outsider (like me) to occasionally peer in and try to understand. I still read the site and the links and have my own opinion, but have decided that if I can't get a grip on the many ways to wai after all these years (age, position, relationship, economic status, social status among the factors) or how kriengjai comes into play when you're really pissed at someone, I'll hardly ever be able to understand the inner workings of Thai politics. And that's not even taking into account the role (the big role) of the military and the palace in the equation.

[jackspratt]

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.

[KHONDAHM]

I hear you loud and clear. Your opinion is that Thaksin is a 'bad guy', an authentic fraud, an angelic demon, etc. I do not defend him or his actions (at least, I hope I didn't). Still, even if he were the 2nd coming of Hitler, I would be advocating for the people to have their vote and that the vote be respected (in this country or any other which claims democracy). =D>

[Laan Yaa Mo]

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.

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.

[jackspratt]

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. =D> =D> =D>

[Laan Yaa Mo]

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

[parrot]

"the armed forces staying in their barracks, and being subject to civilian control"........ohhhhh, to wish upon a star!

[nkstan]

I hear you loud and clear. Your opinion is that Thaksin is a 'bad guy', an authentic fraud, an angelic demon, etc. I do not defend him or his actions (at least, I hope I didn't). Still, even if he were the 2nd coming of Hitler, I would be advocating for the people to have their vote and that the vote be respected (in this country or any other which claims democracy). =D>

KD,do you define democracy as the right of each individual to vote?

[KHONDAHM]

I hear you loud and clear. Your opinion is that Thaksin is a 'bad guy', an authentic fraud, an angelic demon, etc. I do not defend him or his actions (at least, I hope I didn't). Still, even if he were the 2nd coming of Hitler, I would be advocating for the people to have their vote and that the vote be respected (in this country or any other which claims democracy). =D>

KD,do you define democracy as the right of each individual to vote?

Now, c'mon NSTAN, you knew that to be an absurd suggestion as you were writing it.

[nkstan]

I hear you loud and clear. Your opinion is that Thaksin is a 'bad guy', an authentic fraud, an angelic demon, etc. I do not defend him or his actions (at least, I hope I didn't). Still, even if he were the 2nd coming of Hitler, I would be advocating for the people to have their vote and that the vote be respected (in this country or any other which claims democracy). =D>

KD,do you define democracy as the right of each individual to vote?

Now, c'mon NSTAN, you knew that to be an absurd suggestion as you were writing it. [/quotAgreed,but you seem to be using the word democracy very liberally as a defense of your position and it is hard for me to believe that in your heart and mind you envision democratic principles and values are in play here!

[maaka]

from what I no the Thai judiciary / judges are appointed by the Senate, or who holds power in the Senate..it days gone by the military held the power and they appointed who they chose to be judges..dont quote me on that, as its off the top of my rather tired head.