Plus

There's little coverage of this case, but as far as I remember, AEC and DSI discovered some papers proving that her daddy had signing power in one of the companies she kept her shares with.

I don't know if there's anything else, and, sadly, there's no one on board right now to quickly refresh the memory and find relevant background articles.

We are all somewhat ignorant in the details of this trial of the century - two billion dollars are about to be confiscated. Has it ever happened anywhere in the world? Certainly not in Thailand.

Firstly there's no evidence whatsoever the monarchy is offended by this rather silly woman.

Secondly most Thais are only dimly aware of this case.Those that know the background don't feel that strongly because they correctly believe that this woman doesn't represent a threat at all,

Firstly, the monarchy is inviolable whether any particular member feels offended or not.

Secondly, some felt strongly enough to throw bags of feces at her while she was talking, though probably not on that particular occasion.

And, on the other hand, if she had built up an audience that was tolerant, if not receptive of her threats to the monarchy - all the more reasons to put an end to it, nip it in the bud, before she develops even more following and gets bold enough to actually try and carry out her threats.

What else did you expect the state would do? Her goal was clear.

and indeed on some subjects - quite separate from the LM charge - she has done no more than point out some true and salient facts.

And she can probably recite English alphabet correctly - irrelevant.

Are you trying to give some sort of an authority to her LM speech just because she was "right" on other topics? All the more reasons to stop it.

Thais know that when individuals start frothing about LM, they invariably have some political agenda.

Certainly not in Darunee's case - politically she was a non-entity, strip her of LM and she is a complete nobody in political sense. Do you know any of her political opponents that could be behind this charge? It's absurd.

And I do not have any opinion on her solitary confinement, I just noticed that it dented her spirit. I don't think that terms of her sentence specify solitary, and if she gets rough treatment from the wardens, what can I say? I don't know for sure, but maybe they feel strongly about her offense.

Lots of Thais would, no matter how pluralistic you try to present them.

I remember what it was. In case you don't - at the end of your first post in this thread you added an offensive comment referring to all Thais as "they".

I even double checked who was that "they". It wasn't any special group, like reds or yellows, just Thais in general.

Reading people's posts IS kind of my business, that's why I come here, and if there are flames in those posts, I can choose to report it to the mods, address you personally, or ignore and let someone else to clean it up. I chose the second option.

Apparently the "puppet" Abhisit went against the wishes of his "masters" and Nattawut is appalled by such arrogance.

It is no secret that Newin has Anupong's backing, he has his man as a Defense Minister, too, and that Defense Minister's brother is the outgoing police chief who opposed Abhisit's choice. A proper puppet would have folded long time ago and went with Chumpol.

Wattanut!

The logic of her speech was "become like Japanese or British monarchy or...."

What followed was a threat, and the court dismissed the defense argument that she had no ability to carry it out.

And you do not threaten anyone with things like violent death, rallying a crowd, repeatedly, much less the monarchy, in Thailand, of all places.

"Statements, sweeping or not are not perjorative if they are true and held to be common knowledge."

Your flame was deleted, common knowledge or not, apparently it was against board rules, which encourage civilized discussion. You are free to flame anywhere else you like, but here we are all just users and we agree to abide by this board rules.

Are second hand diesel bimmers available already? They've been out for just over a year, and I guess only a couple of hundred have been sold so far.

I'm not sure that the price is justified. Of course you get a BMW and some extra performance, but it comes at a price, even second hand.

Another option is diesel Passat.

A fine rather than a jail sentence for defamation seems about right

On the other hand she still feels no remorse for her LM offense. A year in jail seems not enough.

Another goal of punishment is developing a Pavlovian reflex - do not repeat your crimes, it hurts, even if you don't fully comprehend it. On the day of her sentencing she looked like she'd go and repeat her speech straight away. In her recent interviews she sounds a lot more apprehensive. Apparently solitary confinement has this effect on people.

Say what you want, but jail, and all its internal credit-debit system are designed for people who otherwise don't get it. I mean everyone knows that stealing or dealing drugs is wrong, but some don't have strong enough convictions against it.

Pity that Torpedo doesn't get that offending the monarchy is not acceptable here. She still thinks she was absolutely innocent. And pity those who take her views as some sign of Thai societal thinking. It isn't, she is a freak they all want to put away, including her former comrades. Pity those who take lessons in courage from this misguided woman.

Another interesting point is that people want to vote where they live rather than where they have their house registration. Support for this is even higher among those who stay in one place and then see hordes of people whose faces they don't know come back from the capital and vote on the local issues.

Also people say that vote buying influences voters, but also that the voters don't feel obliged upon receiving the money. They also say that opinion of local influential people doesn't matter much, but also that they value "availability and accessibility" of the candidate far more than his achievements.

That means the prospective MP needs to "connect" to the public first and foremost.

Just like in marketing talk - when the brand value is created in customer's mind, everything works for it, you can't sway his opinion easily, no matter how influential you are or how much money you offer. Getting into peoples hearts - that's what brings votes.

From the time I spent in Ford once, it looked pretty spartan, and without various goodies you get from Toyota or Honda, like DVDs or start buttons.

I might be wrong.

Gadgets are fairly important for Thai buyers.

The main problem with this current parliament debate is that those who seek amendments do not want people to have a say in them, and they want amendments for articles that people either disagree or don't care, as a survey shows.

That proves the Democrats are correct - the amendments are self-serving and will do nothing to solve political problems.

Ideally they should get some list of changes and take it to a referendum, with people ticking them point by point. Those changes that don't pass get thrown out.

Asia Foundation survey is out:

"When asked how the Constitution should be amended, 67% say

amendment should be drafted through a participatory process that

involves ordinary citizens; 10% say amendment should be done by

Parliament alone, and 16% thought changes should be drafted by a

committee of experts. Regardless of method of amendment, an

overwhelming majority (84%) believes that a new or revised constitution

should be ratified through a referendum.

http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/T...portenglish.pdf

There's a lot to read there, the next interesting thing I saw was

" A majority

(62%) favor retaining Article 237 of the 2007 Constitution (which allows

the banning of politicians and dissolution of parties) in a revised

Constitution, and only one in five (21%) think politicians convicted of

crimes should be pardoned. Likewise, 57% would support revoking the

pardons granted the military coup-makers in the 2007 constitution,

nevertheless 62% see the army as an important institution, and 69%

say the army is the right size."

I hope Democrats bring these results to the parliament and show them during the debate. It's a great opportunity to remind MPs what the people of this country actually want.

Troll

They are waiting for your wisdom.

Do you know that extremely negative and sweeping statements about Thailand and its people are against forum rules?

Whether you like it or not the Red Shirts represent a major political force which one way or another will stamp its mark.

Care to elaborate what political force they represent and why do you think it's major?

I've just asked about it, no one seems to know what their agenda is, kinda awkward for a "major political force".

Even on the pardon issue, widely supported in the society, they could only muster 3.5 million signatures. That's less than 10% of the electorate.

Isn't it interesting that in a midst of all these debates over ISA, no one mentions the agenda of that rally.

Anyone know what they want? Apart from saving Thaksin's ass?

I've read several scenarios of how it could develop, by PAD and by journalists, and no one mentioned any red ideas at all.

I think it's a sign that the movement lost all democratic credibility, if it ever had any.

Perhaps because the thread is about the implementation of the ISA.

But maybe , just maybe- the rally is about, among other things, free and fair elections- that would be democratic would it not?

Yes, this thread is about ISA, but reds right to protest is mentioned in every post, too. So, what are they going to protest about?

Is it really about elections? I don't know, I thought they didn't accept 2007 constitution and wanted to amend it first. Do they have a position on those amendments that are currently debated in parliament?

Or do they want elections before the amendment process is complete.

This part is really confusing.

I've left this forum a long time because of the seriously one sided...

Maybe you mean intelligent vs ignorant. Never mind, we are here to help.

Errr, are you all questioning whether the Shinawatra's owned controlling internest in AIS???

This should have been settled by SET a long time ago if it was questionable?????

The question here is WHICH of the Shinawatras controlled it. If it was Thaksin and Pojamarn, that it was illegal. If it was their children, they are clear.

AEC, together with DSI, discovered evidence that Thaksin still had the control of at least one of the companies owning Shin. If they can prove it to the court Thaksin can kiss his asset goodbye.

The case, however, is a lot more complicated than letting his wide to buy state auctioned property.

SEC, besides being run by Thaksin's cronies, does not have legal power to investigate shareholding and ownership of overseas based companies like WinMark or Ample Rich.

Isn't it interesting that in a midst of all these debates over ISA, no one mentions the agenda of that rally.

Anyone know what they want? Apart from saving Thaksin's ass?

I've read several scenarios of how it could develop, by PAD and by journalists, and no one mentioned any red ideas at all.

I think it's a sign that the movement lost all democratic credibility, if it ever had any.

I think the story of Thais burning a kid alive is not plausible at all. I can't even imagine how it could have happened.

I can.

I can also "imagine" them causing the death of scores of Bak Tai protestors by stacking them like cord wood on trucks.

I can also "imagine" them of shooting and hanging Thai students during periods of unrest.

I can also "imagine" them of towing Rohingya refugees back out to sea and setting them adrift.

You can't "imagine" these events but it does not mean that they do not occur.

Tak Bai - they had to put a thousand people on ten trucks. They didn't plan for them to suffocate. Burning kids alive is different.

Atrocities during "unrest" were committed not by the military but by militias, and it's a thirty year old story.

Boat people are not particularly welcome anywhere in the world, and since it's not Thailand's job to sort out Burmese on their way to Malaysia, they set them on their course.

As you might have noticed, none of the countries in the region blames Thailand for that - they know they wouldn't want to be in Thai shoes when hundreds of male muslims arrive on their shores.

This is again different from burning kids alive.

And since you have such a vivid imagination - why don't you describe your version of events? Did they tie him to a stake? Dozed him in gasoline? How could this burning alive happen? And how to Cambodians know the kid was alive when his body burned? Do they have forensic crime labs in that province?

I'm afraid this story has all the hallmarks of Cambodian hysteria of the kind that led them to burn Thai embassy a while ago.

The govt can't afford NOT to bail them out either.

These days if one big company falls, tens if not hundreds of MILLIONS of people will suffer, many of them not even connected to that company in any way.

Take a simple chain of mortgages, falling house sales, closing real estate and servicing companies, small shops in the areas affected by closures and, and a domino effect on other behemoth companies in the same field as the original failure. It spreads like fire.

Of course it's a pity that rich cats who caused it all in the first place get the best deal out of those bail outs, but suspending bail outs is like throwing the baby with bath water.

As for original risk taking - yes, it depends on guarantees, but so does the rest of the modern economy. This bubble grows on trust people put in each other and in institutions.

Less trust, less growth, as simple as that.

As long as everyone and everything is judged by growth, from economy to personal success, crises like these are unavoidable. I think Marx figured that out first.

At one time Acer and Compaq used to sell Linux laptops to reduce prices but they apparently stopped this practice. It was some Taiwanese "Linpus".

I had heard that early on in his business career that he received some lucrative contracts for computers from the police. Can anybody verify this information.

It's in her testimony - establishment of Shinawatra computers. Her father was the police general and the company got a contract supplying all police stations in Thailand.

The longest confession is from Snoh Thienthong, who truly qualifies as an "insider"....

"He [Thaksin] placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were ... If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with 'his person' first. Many ministers were approached by 'his person' saying, 'The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party ... Any minister who would not do this, could not remain."

Snoh then explained how the system worked.

"For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with 'his person' via Khunying, the matter could be sent to his trusted 'permanent political representative', who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying."

Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: "In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business." Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, "If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety."

Originally from the Nation, but this is the first google hit:

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showCon...90&id2=3912

Sounds reasonable, until you realize that there's a whole issue of where that Cambodian territory start - PAD wants the Thai army to remove Cambodian villagers from the disputed territory, Cambodians threaten to start shooting if anyone steps there.

..

In fact some of the judges at the top of the judiciary were appointed by the coup appointed government and were openly opposed to Thasin before and after the coup.\Even the committee that brought charges against Thaksin were set up by coup leaders and were leaders in the hate campaign against him.

That was an investigative committee, they can appoint anyone they like to investigate Thaksin's crimes, just as Thaksin can appoint anyone as his defense lawyer.

I think the story of Thais burning a kid alive is not plausible at all. I can't even imagine how it could have happened.

Why don't you look at Khmer record of twisting the facts and going bonkers before you give any credit to whatever accusation they come up now?