jayboy

I'm happy to deal with/discuss other possible crimes by Thaksin or by others, on threads pertinent to those matters, of which there are many. The only way in which they would be pertinent to this thread, is if the individuals concerned had fled after being tried and convicted for those alleged crimes. Until that happens, these matters serve no purpose being included in this discussion, besides offering relief to those who find the actual topic too hard to deal with.

I believe this thread is about Chalerm and Thaksin's pardon.I understand why you want to limit discussion but the matters raised (including the potential serious criminal charges against Thaksin's main accusers) are relevant.

Rixalex

"Silly and off topic" you say, when clearly my post was neither.I knew this would be too sensitive for some to deal with rationally.Their problem is that Abhisit and his military cronies have yet to be properly scrutinised for some extremely serious offences (think of Mubarak who is facing rather similar charges), while the offences Thaksin has been charged with are relatively trivial.It's hard for some to deal with.

Actually the drug killings are relevant because I think there's a general consensus these were the worst of Thaksin's abuses.If Thaksin was wanted in the Thai courts for these charges I don't think there would be any question of a pardon.So the question of why thee charges weren't brought against him is a matter of legitimate discussion, and relevant to this thread.

If you wish us to sit down and lament all the crimes that have possibly been committed but yet to be tried, we will be here all day. Not sure where it will get us however.

All the crimes? No, just the one - the murder of civilians on the streets of Bangkok.

I know it's not a popular subject but I have a feeling it can't be wished away.And whatever Buchholz says it's directly relevant to this thread given that Abhisit is leading the charge against Thaksin's pardon.

[quote name='scorecard' timestamp='1315547200' post='4684729'

And please let's not regurgitate the old story about 'other people are also corrupt'.

I'm not talking about corruption.I'm talking about more serious crimes (which as previously noted are far from proven).

To get a pardon, you first need accept responsibility and repent for your crimes. If Thaksin doesn't admit to any wrongdoing and serve at least a day in jail then how can a pardon be granted to someone who doesn't admit any wrongdoing?

It's a fair point.Nevertheless we know from Wikileaks and elsewhere that the charges against Thaksin had political motivation behind them (that's different from saying there were was no substance to the charges, though they were relatively trivial by Thai standards).What makes this rather contentious that those in the lead (particularly Abhisit and Prayuth) in pursuing Thaksin to the prison cell may have committed prima facie much more serious crimes for which they have not yet been charged.They may indeed be wholly innocent but we don't know because there has been no resolution to the Inquiry, and the army has refused to co-operate.In an ideal world these more serious charges would be cleared up first.

If he comes back a free man, mark my words, Thailand will not have free and fair elections again.

Why should Thaksin have a problem with free and fair elections since the parties he's associated with are able to win them so comfortably?

Historically, people who go to the lengths Thaksin has gone through to obtain power never seem to keep hold of it legitimately. It's not as if "being legitimate" is something this man prides himself on so far.

And to many Thais the man is utterly unacceptable.

I'm not sure that makes much sense.If one can win power legitimately why should one want it illegitimately? It's more of an issue for Thaksin's opponents with their coups, judicial interventions and failure to win popular support.

We know that many Thais find Thaksin unacceptable but that doesn't give them a veto power.In essence that's what the political struggle is about.

If he comes back a free man, mark my words, Thailand will not have free and fair elections again.

Why should Thaksin have a problem with free and fair elections since the parties he's associated with are able to win them so comfortably?

The realpolitik of this is Chalerm sends the message to the establishment that Thaksin is coming home unfettered and we dont care what way: court, legislative amnesty or pardon. Ibviously the establishment don not want a certain option so which will they choose or will they force a political accident?

I have taken to asking every Thai person I know the simple question of do you think Thaksin is coming home. Last night a small bunch of PAD likers gave a resounding yes. People expect it now

I have to say I'm surprised by the unseemly haste and I have been assuming up to now it doesn't make sense politically for the government.And yet...and yet.I do see that from Thaksin's viewpoint it makes sense to take action when the moment is propitious (Bismarck and his galloping horse again!).The forces lodged against him are on the backfoot at present and they can only become stronger as time passes.On the other hand I think it's almost impossible to underestimate the hatred the elite feels for Thaksin, and its inability to negotiate a compromise.So something really stupid could be orchestrated..a coup, a Benny Aquino incident, a nutty court ruling etc etc.

But I could be completely wrong and perhaps the deal was worked out a long time ago.

It seems the process of issuing PR is not completely frozen as i had been given to understand, ever since i completed my application process a few years ago. A person known to me got his PR last week. His initial application process was done in 2007 through a broker and he had paid about 150k Baht (fee was for guiding him in completing and submitting all documentation correctly and not for getting a PR). He was contacted by the same broker now informing him that there was a small quota of 3-4 available for an additional payment of 200k which he paid and got the PR on the 1st of September 2011.

Interesting but did he get an official receipt for the additional payment of 200k from Immigration or just pay it to the broker? If the latter, it would be impossible to tell whether the additional fee was imposed solely by the broker, by Immigration unofficially or by Immigration in cahoots with the broker.

There is no basis in the Immigration Act for any quotas other than the 100 per nationality per year or for any fees part from those prescribed in the Act. Immigration may not be 100% squeaky clean but they are unlikely to try on something like this that would be instantly discussed amongst whinging foreigners who might file complaint, subjecting the staff to high risk of losing very soft jobs and worse. By logical deduction, this was most likely a clever scam thought up by the broker acting alone to earn an extra 200k for doing nothing.

I have to say that's my view also.I have never heard of or come across an instance of this kind of behaviour in connnection with PR,and have always thought this reflected extremely well on Immigration Department.I'm not doubting saakura's post but I am very sceptical that Immigration officials have anything to do with it.My cynical guess (mirrors your thought), given other evidence available, is that PR approvals are beginning to trickle through and the "broker" saw an opportunity.There is an important point here namely that nothing on this forum should give the impression, unless a lot more convincing proof is available, that this kind of scam exists because it wrongly implies illegal behaviour on the part decent honest Thai civil servants.

His ideas about the Arab Spring and the American "globalists" behind it are especially comic, though his defence of the murderous thug Assad is in my eyes a disgrace.

What are your thoughts on his writings on Thailand? Do you dismiss his evidence of the connections between Thaksin and the interests of global corporations?

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

So what do you think is the motivation behind The National Endowment for Democracy, a US entity, to fund Prachathai? Do you think they are merely being charitable? I think it's not too different from Thaksin paying Amsterdam. Usually whenever payment is involved, some kind of return is expected.

Sorry I'm not going to dignify Cartalucci with a discussion of his absurd and paranoic ideas.The man is deranged.If you really want my views on his Thailand ideas, can we do it by pm please.

Tony Cartalucci's response is here: Alternative Media Making Waves

Here's a quote:

Prachatai to this day still insists that it is "an independent, non-profit, daily web newspaper" despite the fact that it is wholly funded by the US government via some of the most dubious organizations in existence. The National Endowment for Democracy, for example, despite its benign name, is loaded from top to bottom with members of the American corporate and financial elite, including notorious warmongers. The organization has a long, documented history of leveraging the ideals of democracy to build up opposition movements, enact regime change, and then extend US military and economic hegemony over targeted nations.

I defy anyone to have a reasonably careful look at Tony Cartalucci's website and not come to the conclusion he is several sandwiches short of a picnic.His ideas about the Arab Spring and the American "globalists" behind it are especially comic, though his defence of the murderous thug Assad is in my eyes a disgrace.Ah well that's the internet for you where the barking mad can explain their theories at interminable length to the world.He probably can't help himself and in former days he would just be scribbling notes to his fellow paranoids!Anyway for anyone who refers to Cartalucci as a credible source does himself a disservice.

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

Believe I miss-phrased it, application "not accepted" might be better wording. And this was after about 6 months or so of temporary extensions, and visits to Suan Plu top floor several times by the Mrs and me. Two problems, I think, first being on a "retirement" extension, and this was the year K Purachai as MoI said "no" to that category, and second was no history of Thai tax payments since when I'd earlier been working here was in an exempt status.

In the end, just got a stamp in my passport, in Thai, saying "nix." When I get back home will scan and post the stamp.

Mac

Many thanks and hope that something can be worked out for you in the future.

FYI, I did apply for PR status several years back but was rejected, this was during K Purachai's tenure at MOI.

As a matter of interest was your application rejected while it was still with the Immigration Department or was it approved by the latter and then rejected by the MOI? In either event did you ever find out why?

Thanks

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries.

Perhaps that's the answer as even when the Senate was fully elected and still supposedly non-partisan, there was no shortage of smoke filled room deals that wrested control of these supposedly independent Senators to do the bidding of those in control.

The whole idea of independent senators was fairly utopian as politicians are rarely independent. I guess with party linked senators you would also know the open and hidden agendas. I also remember reading on the Thai webboards the amounts offered to get independent votes in that esteemed establishment. Of course who knows if such gossip is right or not but independents are more vulnerable than those tied to parties who really have to follow the line. Giving people the power of recall over senators may be a good idea too if the one term limit is used again. Lots of possibilities when you think about it

Some decent posts here.There is a genuine dilemma involved and one facing upper houses the world over.On the one hand to reflect the democratic wishes of the people and on the other to restrain the mob and ill considered populist policies of the lower house - both important tasks and of course in some senses contradictory.

Regardless of content for a moment it's critical that the constitutional process is fair and transparent.That's one of the reasons the the current constitution fails.

In Thailand as a general proposition when the elites talk of independents, they don't of course really mean that at all.

It reflects the difficulty in having a truly independent, non-partisan Senate. Whether it was all elected as before under Thaksin or the current system of mixed elected and appointed, both systems revealed their flaws.

Some serious re-thinking and re-writing needs to be undertaken if the goal is an independent Senate. Simply reverting back to the 1997 Constitution won't improve the situation one iota.

I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to have a non-partisan Senate.It's almost inevitable allegiances will be one way or the other.Senators of high personal integrity are obviously important.

The trouble with the present system, apart from those currently under discussion, is that it emerged from an illegal and criminal enterprise - the 2006 coup - with a clear undemocratic agenda.No wonder so many Thais , not just redshirts, want nothing to do with it.

For those who are interested in the context here's a useful summary from Daniel Ten Kate, which touches on the lies, cheating and skulduggery of the junta in the process.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=31

I agree that the poor do have a clear idea of their political interests. However, for many, the perceived way to realise that idea comes from local propaganda and who shouts loudest over the village tannoy, which are the main ways many get to hear pro and anti government rhetoric. It is also not in the best interests of any country to play up to one grouping, no matter what their numbers are, to the detriment of any other. Especially when the grouping being down played, in this case the middle class, is the one that is essentially responsible for much of the country's economic growth in the past few decades. By all means raise the income of the poor, after all, that is where the middle class has come from and, contrary to those who would have us belive that the poor are stuck in a rut and will never rise in the world, continues to come from, but to demonise the middle classes as some dreary grouping of suburban middle management-a-trons who do their best to keep the poor down, and make them responsible for the plight of the country is both disengenious and, history has shown, an ultimately dangerous tactic for a government to use. Dangerous in the sense that either the government or the wellbeing / freedom of the country as a whole suffers. Time will tell which is to happen here.

Some well made points in your post and I agree with much of it.

As to the demonisation of the middle class, I don't really recognise this as a policy of the current government or even of the red shirts.I am quite critical of the Sino Thai middle class but don't think that is widely shared in the country at large.In fact one could argue that the current government reflects that constituency even more than the last one.

As to poverty and repression of the working class, I don't really believe this (whatever the nuttier redshirts say) is the source of the country's current divisions - or even a factor at all.I think it's much more about an awakened political consciousness, the decline of a krengjai society, the end of a system where small unelected elites can control Thailand's destiny (and kin muang themselves).Not so hard to understand and a process completed in countless countries which have transcended an agricultural economy.Key question is - how will this be managed given that the direction and destination is almost inevitable.

^ Best estimates put the illiteracy (can't read/write) total for Thailand at around 7 million.

If one doesn't get out much and interact with a cross-section of Thais, I can imagine one has never met any of these 7 million Thais.

I have.

.

I'm not sure this rather peculiar post needs to be taken seriously.Nevetheless there's an important point to be made:

Thailand's literacy rate is remarkably high.Of course there are Thais , mainly of the older generation, who are illiterate just as there are many Americans and Englishmen who cannot read or write adequately (although one suspects the younger generation is represented rather more given the feral underclass in the West which thankfully doesn't exist in Thailand).However I do not make the mistake of confusing illiteracy with lack of intelligence or discernment as some do on this thread.If Thailand's educational resources had not been heavily skewed towards urban areas there's no doubt rural literacy rates would be even better.The improvement of rural education and a fairer share of resources would be an excellent policy for any government, and would be free of populist overtones.

Historically the defenders of privilege and the established order have looked to institute barriers to poorly educated people particularly in the operation of the franchise.The quasi fascist PAD movement was an example of this before its decline and abandonment by key elite players.In Thailand two factors are worthy of note.Firstly, the principle of universal franchise is now permanent and the majority lies with the North and the North East.The middle class parties will have to raise their game to persuade sufficient numbers to enable a government to be formed.I believe this can be done with better leadership.Secondly, it is a mistake to believe that poorly educated people do not have a very clear idea of where their political interests lie.There are some I agree who hold this view particularly among the Sino Thai urban middle class but they are mistaken as their equivalents have been mistaken in other countries and at other times.

Well, regarding the well-founded belief that hatred queers one's outlook, i accept i may at times be guilty of that; human nature i think. I wonder though if you consider yourself above falling into that particular trap? I ask because a number of your posts exhibit to my mind exactly the same level of distaste, hatred, or whatever you wish to call it, as those you like to call Thaksinophobes... or is it military cheerleaders? Or perhaps yellow skirts? I forget. Keeping up with current juvenile labelling can be hard at times. I appreciate though your need to put people in neat little boxes.

Anyway, getting back to your hatred, do you perhaps attempt to deny its existence? Or do you consider yourself able, where other lesser beings are not , to rise above such emotions and successfully retain a semblance of balance to your opinion?

As for good luck and karma, i agree that to a large degree, we make our own. There are times however when things happen quite beyond and outside our realm of control.

Distaste and hatred are two quite different things.I do try and remain reasonably detached, and "not give way to hating" to quote Kipling.But of course I am unreasonable sometimes, as little as possible I hope

I do have a strong distaste for those who have a bullying dogmatic approach, who never admit they could be wrong or that the opposing opinion might have some truth in it.

As to this forum I don't do "hate".To do so would be absurd and deranged in an anonymous discussion.

But the buyers did come along, and they weren't what is known as "dumb money".The fact that they paid the price they did, by definition, justifies Thaksin's judgement.It wasn't part of a great business masterplan on Thaksin's part but he undoubtedly had a reasonable idea of an undervalued asset and its upside potential.That's why he's a sqillionaire (and I'm not) and however much you dislike him it's slightly fatuous to look for explanations in karma and fortuitous good luck.

I don't think it was so much to do with his appreciation and understanding of how it was undervalued - i don't really think looking at the market, it was - i think his judgement call on it had much more to do with what was going on back in Thailand, and how he might in some way stay in touch with the hearts and minds of the Premiership crazy Thai people. Keep his name in the headlines. Look like a big shot. Pretend he had a clue about football. Largely a political game, no different from all that nonsense about buying Liverpool when he was in power. Making money from it was an unexpected but pleasant surprise, i would imagine.

And by the way, i don't look for explanations in karma or good luck, i am simply aware of their existence.

The factors you mention no doubt played some part in his decision.However you dislike the man so much that your judgement is faulty and unconvincing, specifically underestimating his commercial acumen.I don't like him much either but don't share the pathological hatred that's so common here.And it's a fundamental rule of investing on the part of men like Thaksin that there should be a healthy return corresponding with the risk reward ratio.The other perceived benefits (making a splash with football loving Thais) were incidental.It's pointless continuing this discussion with an unbending Thaksinophobe, and you are one of the sane ones.Imagine what it's like having a debate with one of the deranged!

And by the way good luck and karma don't exist except in the sense that men make their own.

Well, truth of the matter is, Thaksin was becoming squeezed into a very tight situation with his ownership of City - both with the club itself and with the country hosting him - and had the buyers not come along when they did, it could have all turned out quite differently.

And how often is it in business that people come along who are simply there for the fun of it, and really really don't care about profitability? They still don't i hasten to add. The whole thing is freakish, surely you would have to agree, and to suggest that it was all part of a great business masterplan, might just be a little far-fetched. He landed on his feet is all. Karma must have been napping.

But the buyers did come along, and they weren't what is known as "dumb money".The fact that they paid the price they did, by definition, justifies Thaksin's judgement.It wasn't part of a great business masterplan on Thaksin's part but he undoubtedly had a reasonable idea of an undervalued asset and its upside potential.That's why he's a sqillionaire (and I'm not) and however much you dislike him it's slightly fatuous to look for explanations in karma and fortuitous good luck.

I think you put this rather well, even though we may have different opinions of his acumen.But I go back to the Man City deal, pooh poohed at the time quite widely but turned out to be a brilliant investment when Abu Dhabi interests brought him out for squillions.

You might put all that down to good judgement. You might say that in all his wisdom, he had an inclining all along that those buyers would come along when they did. Personally i would say it came down a lot more to jolly good fortune.

Generally in business as in other areas, the more accomplished and diligent you are, the more luck you have.The whole point of a deal like Man City is having an eye on the exit:it's part of what makes a great investor.

I would agree that Thaksin's wealth required more effort in its acquisition than that of others, but personally i feel you somewhat overestimate the degree of business acumen that it took. Getting the monopoly established, and in the right field, was where he takes considerable credit. After that, it would have been hard for him to fail.

I think you put this rather well, even though we may have different opinions of his acumen.But I go back to the Man City deal, pooh poohed at the time quite widely but turned out to be a brilliant investment when Abu Dhabi interests brought him out for squillions.He seems to me to be a master of the art of "len game", outmanoevring his opponents.Looking back at the election - taking a different field - it's clear with the benefit of hindsight how he rang rings round the Dems.Does this say anything about his morality? Not at all.

Part of the problem in getting a measure of Thaksin is how those who hate him, often for different reasons to those they profess, throw every criticism at him they can think of - whether it's credible or not.With that kind of lack of discrimination, he may end up shrugging off charges which should be brought against him.

Despite what the angry brigade say Thaksin didn't become rich through corruption (like most Thai politicians, generals and senior bureaucrats)but through legal business methods.OK once he was rich there begins to be an argument.

Disagree. Thaksin's rise to extraordinary wealth was no different to that of the others you mention - other of course from the fact that his was more meteoric.

Corruption is rarely ever where the riches come from, at least not directly. Corruption is the facilitator. The catalyst. In Thaksin's case it was specifically getting a monopoly contract signed on supplying computers. That deal was the launchpad for all that followed. Now, do you really think that deal was clean?

No you are just wrong here.Thaksin did start off flogging main frames to the police force where of course he had many contacts.Were palms greased? Probably given that this is Thailand.But he became rich primarily through initiative,excellent business instincts and determination.It's just ludicrous to suggest the source of his wealth can be compared to that of the corrupt slugs in the military and bureaucracy who never "do" anything to earn it at all except accept kickbacks.Nobody has suggested Thaksin has clean hands (name one business man of consequence in Thailand who has).

There is no need to overthrow this ship of fools, it will capsize on its own. Too many over-weighted Shinawatras and red shirts moving to the top while the ballast, the national Treasury, is depleted on unsustainable populist policies. Like the good ship Wasa, on the first sign of troubled waters, this lot will go to the bottom.

Best we can hope for is not be sucked down in the turbulence when it happens

sadly they have found a vast source of ballast. The Bank of Thailand reserves. Sovereign Wealth Fund anyone? Investment outside Thailand in the hands of a real pro! remember man city?

Now that really will give the Shinawatras something to play with. watch this one run as it will be their big play this time! there could be billions and billions of baht in this one, you may even see him back off trying to get his other restitution fines back once he is sure he can milk this particular cow! its so large, he may even cut in a few other high profile, outside/above the law types!

Actually I do remember the Manchester City deal.Whether Thaksin was a suitable person to take over the club is highly debatable: I can't believe the FA's "fit and proper" test was much of a stretch.However as a business deal for Thaksin it was fantastic, illustrating his ability to see opportunities others can't.If he was less - well, Thaksin like - I can't think of many people better suited to have a leading role in a sovereign wealth fund.Remember the much praised Korn (on whom I admit I have a slight man crush) has virtually no experience of private equity or doing deals at all - mainly advisory like all investment bankers.Now if Thaksin and Korn could combine somehow in a Dr Frankenstein experiment , that would be formidable - Korn's structured intellect and ethics and Thaksin's inspired wheeler dealing.Despite what the angry brigade say Thaksin didn't become rich through corruption (like most Thai politicians, generals and senior bureaucrats)but through legal business methods.OK once he was rich there begins to be an argument.

One of the few institutions that can be relied upon for the most part is the judiciary in Thailand

I think this is right but possibly not quite in the way you are suggesting