jing jing

On 9/26/2017 at 4:22 AM, LannaGuy said:

Well we know she's not in one of his jail cells thank God! 

Anyone who's pondered her whereabouts has sussed out that's about the least likely place she could be.

Edit:  just saw the post above, that should read, "Almost anyone..."

5 hours ago, Reigntax said:

 

He who is currently giving all the orders would be the best place to start.

Mr. T, then?

I cannot imagine the police commision would be in favor of any measure that would increase accountability or reduce cash flow from corrupt activities.  Perhaps the idea is that each regional fiefdom can be run as the local chiefs prefer, not needing to answer to centcom and effectively ruling out the possibility that a group of troublemakers in central command could make life difficult for the boys in the field.  I'd imagine if you want to keep morale high in the rank and file, that would be a popular proposal.

23 minutes ago, maeab101 said:

Yes he is innocent and a good boy. He only used yaba a few times. His father put a stop to his drug use. By killing 3000 of his dealers.

LOL

A good boy, meaning he hasn't killed anyone by losing control driving a Ferrari while out of his mind on drink and drugs.

In some families, that is enough to make you a good boy.

27 minutes ago, nausea said:

These displays of selective justice are doing more harm than good, methinks

 

Let's face it, if they tried to prosecute every instance of malfeasance among Thai politicians, the court system would collapse under the caseload.  They have to choose which ones are, for whatever reason, worth pursuing.  

Every politician knows very well that if their party is no longer in power, as a consequence they may be more likely to face justice for misdeeds committed while in office.  This is why traditionally there is some degree of honor among thieves in the pig wallow of Thai politics.  It is understood that the flood of monies which flows in from corruption at all levels needs to be distributed even to those outside your immediate clique, lest the day come when your party is out of power and favors are called in.

In his supreme arrogance, the boss believed his plan to consolidate political power and never relinquish it was too brilliant to fail, therefore he and those within his ruling clique wouldn't ever be held accountable.  Amnesty plans passed in the middle of the night come to mind.

If he had ever shown just an iota of humility, a tiny bit less greed, if he could have been even slightly conciliatory towards his adversaries....who knows?  Maybe, just maybe he and his clique would not now be the "victims" of such selective prosecution.  

What goes around, comes around.

1 hour ago, maeab101 said:

It was a small amount of money. Also he returned it. Why are they trying to make a example of him? Because of his name? looks like a witch hunt!

A small amount... really?  Small, perhaps in comparison to the sums they are accustomed to pocketing through their invariably corrupt schemes.  I suspect that the average Thai citizen wouldn't consider Bt 10mil such a "tiny" amount if it just appeared one day in their bank account.  

Just more proof of the boundless arrogance, the utter disregard for any rules that stand in their way, the absence of honesty which poisons every statement issued, every action taken, every devious scheme conceived by this toxic clan.

So he returned the dirty money, did he?  Did that happen immediately upon receiving it because he knew it was improper, or was it only after the transaction came to light and legal consequences actually became a possibility, however unlikely?

A witch hunt, is it?  I reckon Daddy was taking a page from the Trump playbook when he gave Oak the talking points.  Every investigation into their activities must be a witch hunt because even though they are beyond reproach and can do no wrong, the legal system is biased and out to get them.  And why aren't they investigating Hillary?

11 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Another one spouting rubbish on twitter,sure you know the other one.

whenever a politician is caught doing something wrong,and is 

taken to court,they always say its political persecution,happens 

quite often in 3rd world countries,when most people know what the truth is.

regards worgeordie

For this one it's the judiciary, for the other it's the media; how dare they hold us accountable, don't they know we were democratically elected?  The people love us!!   We can do no wrong!!

3 minutes ago, balo said:

If Sean were completey innocent he would come forward or write a book about what happened on KT . His complete silence in this case , except the one interview we have seen makes you wonder. Not a word from him.

If I were to speculate, I'd say he may well have some information that could put his life in jeopardy.

8 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

If you want to believe that her fellow travelers knowing what happened to there friend did not somehow report it either to officials or to the media, well up to you.

But it has been enlightening knowing all the reasons why prosper who know something that could help exonerate two persons on death row would choose not to do so.

I have never claimed to believe that anyone witnessed anything.  The accused and the perpetrators - if indeed they are not the same persons - may well be the only people alive who know for sure whether or not those two young men on death row deserve to be there.  The police know what happened to the original DNA samples but they aren't telling.

7 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

That the late Ms. Witheridge arrived Koh Tao 12 SEP so for the 3 whole days she was with fellow travels from UK and elsewhere and not one person even since returning home has reported that they saw anybody hassling or confronting their friend.

Which leads you to what conclusion?  Either they didn't see it or didn't report it, so... what?

13 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Because if the detailed scenario that has been posted on here in this very topic is true, someone must have observed that someone who was not by some accounts really there was actually there ... unless they weren't there.

And your point is.....?

1 minute ago, JLCrab said:

i have never said that there are eyewitnesses. All I have ever said is that if there are eyewitnesses who haven't come forward or there were in fact no eyewitnesses, how could you tell the difference?

But as long as you guys like hypotheticals, I think of what it must be like to be the two Burmese sitting on death row knowing that there are people out there who could potentially exonerate them but they choose to do nothing.

Why are you so obsessed with these non-existent eyewitnesses?  Is it a voyeuristic thing or what?

1 minute ago, JLCrab said:

Eyewitness is not hearsay. Hearsay is somebody told you what happened.

Somebody told you there was an eyewitness.  I call that hearsay.

Crab, your arguments are as pointless as they are repetitive.  One can only assume you take some perverse pleasure in winding folks up.

Yes, you are a master baiter ... there, are you happy now?

:-p

6 hours ago, JLCrab said:

You folks can discuss DNA all you want. On this very topic there was one person who claimed to have friends in the bar that night and saw all that went down right up to the crime and another who offered what would have to be a nearly eyewitness account of the crime itself.

So good old-fashioned evidence is (presumably) out there.

Hearsay at best.  The DNA was there but chain of custody was (intentionally) not maintained so there was (conveniently) nothing for the defense to test.

Notwithstanding the opinions of a bloodthirsty few, the RTP's word ought not to be sufficient evidence to convict and sentence two young men to death by.

8 minutes ago, Artisi said:

If that is the case, then he certainly wasn't educated in Thailand. 

Maybe, maybe not.  There are a few world class international schools here for the well heeled, and overseas for uni would be expected if one's dad was British.  Regardless, I'd like to think a Thai person could participate in the discussion without prejudice either way.

5 hours ago, elgenon said:

Sounds like the best solution for the general and the lady. Does the government keep her money? 

 

What will happen to the general when he leaves office? I am sure he is concerned. He has made a lot of enemies. I think he is trying to stack the police and military in his favor but that can be changed.

Where she's gone and how much she left behind are inconsequential.  What matters is that she's gone, obviously with the tacit approval - if not actual assistance - of the sitting government.  Her exile is the price the lady has paid for her loyalty to Thaksin; a bitter pill to swallow, though it certainly could have been worse.

Well, now that's done and dusted, isn't it about time to hold an election?

;-)

On 8/23/2017 at 2:46 AM, greenchair said:

They were 19 years old and told  by a group of lawyers there was no evidence and thousands believe them to be innocent. 

They were told there was no case.

So they withdrew.  

That was before everyone found out about the victims phone, the video that was indeed them, their proximity to the crime, their belongings left at the crime. 

And they went back to the crime to clean up. 

They told the lawyers they had a beer at the beach and went back to the room at 1 o'clock. We all thought that. 

The evidence showed they were guilty. They fooled themselves and lost. 

Use your common sense.

They pled not guilty because they knew there was absolutely no way their DNA would match the samples taken from Ms. Witheridge.  That was the entire case.

What nobody on the defense accounted for was that actual, credible DNA evidence would not be required to convict them; just the word of the RTP that there was a match was deemed sufficient by the court.

Amazing Thailand!

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Oh, nowhere did I claim he was a saint. Quite the opposite. However, things did most definitely improve under his tenure.

 

Much more than what we are currently seeing. Like it or not, I am a democrat, and I believe in the right of people to choose whoever they deem fit to run their country. Even if it is a corrupt bastard such as Thaksin.

 

One thing is for sure, the current lot are equally bad, but never obtained a mandate, they just took power at gunpoint. Liberties that were normal under previous goverments have vanished into thin air. 

 

There is ZERO accountability at the moment, and to round it all up, the amnesty bill that was introduced by Yingluck's goverement, that never actually came into reality has been utterly and totally dwarfed by the amnesty the NCPO awarded themselves, all with not a single member of the Thai elecotorate casting a vote. 

 

Are you really sure things have not become worse, if so, I think it is time to wake the hell up.

For me personally, the corruption was working to my advantage.  Nothing lasts forever.  I do rather miss the way it was :-)

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

His power base was based solely on an electoral basis. He would have been out of a job if someone would manage to gain more votes, that IS the reality. That no-one to date has managed to do just that, is not to be blamed on Thaksin, the opposition simply does not appeal to enough Thai citizens to make that difference. 

 

In any case, the situtation has become progressively worse, up to a point that it doesn't even really matter if someone defeats PT. The current constitution has made elections inconsequential. 

History is replete with despots who came to power more or less through democratic means.  One needn't go back all that far in European history to find an example.  I'm sure Thaksin's golfing buddy and political soulmate Hun Sen could put together an electoral majority too, if necessary.

Thaksin's populist programs were conceived not out of an altruistic desire to help the poor better their lot, but to guarantee his own stranglehold on power.  It was his plan, in my opinion, to become even more loved by the common people than anyone else in the Kingdom, and in Thailand, we all know what that means.  Any comparison to the Netherlands is simply preposterous.

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

A senate with a political agenda is the every day reality in my country (The Netherlands) and since all senators are elected (indirectly) this is no problem whatsoever. The same was true for the senate under the 1997 constitution. A constitution that cannot be changed or amended by people with a mandate is a design flaw. There was nothing wrong with the 1997 constitution, and the best thing that could happen to Thailand is a reinstatement of that constitution. 

 

I understand, in Thailand, a mandate is not respected, just because some people (we all know who) seem to think the electorate is "uneducated" or "being bought". I cannot think of a bigger insult and I cannot think of a bigger inacurrate description of the actual situation. Disgraceful.

 

In any case, a politician with a undisputed mandate (which Thaksin received twice) should certainly be allowed to amend the consitution, he never did what you claimed, that much is absolutely certain. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Reasonable persons may disagree, but I maintain that Thaksin - indisputably cunning, shrewd, ruthless, and ambitious as he is - had found ways to exploit all the flaws in the new constitution and game the system, if you will.  He was consolidating power in such a way that no one could ever have opposed him or his proxies through the usual electoral process.  Whether or not that would have led to a better or worse situation than the current one is open to speculation but I suspect the latter.

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Dismantling the 1997 constitution ? Can you present even the slightest shread of evidence to back up that claim. Complete and utter nonsense. The junta of 2006 and the current one did indeed just that, Thaksin never did, and never needed to do such a thing anyway, not with the support he enjoyed and probably still enjoys...

 

Oh and prior to his ouster he was in care taker status, he would not be able to do such a thing in any case...

 

He was ousted whilst elections were already scheduled, pretty much in the same way as Yingluck's government was ousted, with elections already scheduled. We all know why, can't have those pesky Thai's deciding who should run their country, much better to have a few incompetent corrupt generals run it...

I will concede that "dismantle" is less accurate than "exploit" would be in describing Thaksin's treatment of the 1997 Constitution.  

Inthe words of researcher Bjoem Dressel:

Scholars have differed in their answers to the question of why 
the 1997 Constitution failed. Some consider the political reform 
coalition, which brought together an unusual mix of liberal academics, 
reform-oriented technocrats and civil society activists, to have 
been unstable. The coalition, which had to overcome considerable 
resistance from conservative elements, not only produced a somewhat 
contradictory draft but also failed to sustain the reform momentum 
after the Constitution was promulgated, leaving it with little support 
beyond the urban reform constituency.
Other scholars consider the institutional framework to have 
been too ambitious, if not an outright design failure. They cite the 
dysfunctional workings of oversight agencies, particularly the Senate, 
which though supposedly neutral quickly became home to the wives, 
children and relatives of leading politicians, a development that 
effectively neutralized any checks and balances on the executive 
branch.  Finally, a popular line of argument in Thailand blamed 
the personality of the executive, arguing that Thaksin and his 
brand of business populism showed little inclination to honour 
the constitutional rules. In actively seeking to undermine them, 
he demonstrated the weakness of democratic political culture in 
Thailand.
 

46 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

I have often stressed that Thaksin is a card carrying member of the Sino Thai tycoon class.You have a point about his megalomania and taking up too much room at the trough.The amart is something rather different and Thaksin is certainly not a member.

Your last paragraph is just hysterical nonsense.Do some homework- that means reading respected authorities not Cartalucci type junk.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Elite and amart (อำมาตย์) are essentially synonymous.

I admit to possibly using a bit of hyperbole in describing his Machiavellian attempts to assure an indefinite reign of power ... but not very much.

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

If you agree King Power, CP, Thai Bev and many others  are "stealing from the Thai people" then your argument might hold.I don't agree.Truth is all have legitimate businesses with real assets and P and L accounts doing useful stuff.Same applied to Thaksin.Yes Thailand business tends to be too monopolistic and business ethics are dubious.Corruption isn't uncommon.That's not the same as stealing from the Thai people.I suggest you focus on  bureaucrats and military people who have massive assets and tiny incomes:that's stealing from the Thai people in my book.

Thaksin's undoing was when he flatly refused to pay even a single satang of tax on the multibillion dollar sale of his monopolistic, state granted business concession.

I find it amusing when his acolytes go on about the Sino-thai elite and the amart, as if he wasn't a card carrying member of that club.  What got him kicked out was the megalomania, the absolute refusal to make any room at the trough for anyone but himself, his family, and his supporters.

He was admonished from "above" on a number of occasions but paid no heed.  Prior to his ouster he was in the process of dismantling the Constitution and rewriting it in such a fashion as to guarantee his clan a thousand year reign, and if you don't believe that, maybe best to go do a little more research.

7 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

All throughout history the ignorant have passed judgement on issues they have little comprehension of.  This is because the ignorant are easy to manipulate.  Anyone who blindly supports one side of Thailand's "political" divide, is clearly ignorant.  Neither side is worthy of support. 

Well said.