Thaksin refuses to participate in telecoms case under new law

[Artisi]

9 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Please share why you think he's innocent.

 

 

Because "I" know he is. 

[ramrod711]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 4:36 AM, webfact said:

Lawyer Veeparat Srichaiya said he had learned from a person close to Thaksin that the former prime minister disagreed with the legal amendment allowing cases against politicians to be tried in the absence of the defendants.

Shocking, what a surprise. Seeing as he is a fugitive from justice I'm sure a lot of people will be concerned about his opinion.

[Samui Bodoh]

Are you guys still on this one?

 

It is very simple. 

 

Thaksin is a dodgy character and almost certainly broke some/many laws along the way, just like every single other person in the upper echelons of politics, the military, the bureaucracy and all aspects of life in Thailand.

 

The issue is whether it is possible for him to get a fair trial in Thai courts under the present circumstances. I would say "No!". And may I say that I am both astonished and (frankly) bewildered at your faith in the Thai legal system; I can think of no reason(s) that would justify your views.

 

This is politics. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

And BTW, it is worth remembering that if there were free and fair elections in Thailand, Thaksin would be elected PM, beating out Prayut, Abhisit, and all other comers.

 

I know that.

 

You know that.

 

All of Thailand knows that.

 

End of story.

[ramrod711]

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Are you guys still on this one?

 

It is very simple. 

 

Thaksin is a dodgy character and almost certainly broke some/many laws along the way, just like every single other person in the upper echelons of politics, the military, the bureaucracy and all aspects of life in Thailand.

 

The issue is whether it is possible for him to get a fair trial in Thai courts under the present circumstances. I would say "No!". And may I say that I am both astonished and (frankly) bewildered at your faith in the Thai legal system; I can think of no reason(s) that would justify your views.

 

This is politics. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

And BTW, it is worth remembering that if there were free and fair elections in Thailand, Thaksin would be elected PM, beating out Prayut, Abhisit, and all other comers.

 

I know that.

 

You know that.

 

All of Thailand knows that.

 

End of story.

Sorry, you are incorrect. No one has any faith it the Thai judicial system. Congratulations are in order for your comment regarding your astonishment at the lack of any reason for anyone to believe in it. A reminder may be in order regarding judicial behavior in the past. A judge, after rendering a not guilty vote in Thaksins favor, explained himself by stating that he knew Thaksin was guilty but didn't think it was his place to remove a government that so many people voted for. Just think what may have happened if that judge had a modicum of integrity. So, no there is little faith in the judiciary, but there is always hope.

[Eric Loh]

58 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

Sorry, you are incorrect. No one has any faith it the Thai judicial system. Congratulations are in order for your comment regarding your astonishment at the lack of any reason for anyone to believe in it. A reminder may be in order regarding judicial behavior in the past. A judge, after rendering a not guilty vote in Thaksins favor, explained himself by stating that he knew Thaksin was guilty but didn't think it was his place to remove a government that so many people voted for. Just think what may have happened if that judge had a modicum of integrity. So, no there is little faith in the judiciary, but there is always hope.

Didn't heard of that judge but one highly publicized comment was from a judge in Thaksin's case who said that justice was sacrificed on political expediency. Really no faith in the judiciary neither much hope it will improve.  

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, ramrod711 said:

A judge, after rendering a not guilty vote in Thaksins favor, explained himself by stating that he knew Thaksin was guilty but didn't think it was his place to remove a government that so many people voted for.

Can you give a reference for this comment?

I recall charges that resulted from an investigation by a panel appointed by the generals who toppled the twice-elected Thaksin in a bloodless 2006 coup. It would follow that Thaksin would be ruled guilty at some point during the judicial process, ie., by the Criminal Supreme Court.
 

[Anak Nakal]

Ha! Thaksin is smarter than military! No Contest.

[scorecard]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Can you give a reference for this comment?

C.
 

 

Ramrods comment is correct and goes back many years to an enquiry well before the first major election that Thaksin and his original TRT party contested. All the judges bar one gave a verdict of guilty, the judge Ramrod refers to said he couldn't find a man who had just won an election guilty. In other words ignoring the actual law

 

"I recall charges that resulted from an investigation by a panel appointed by the generals who toppled the twice-elected Thaksin in a bloodless 2006 coup. It would follow that Thaksin would be ruled guilty at some point during the judicial process, ie., by the Criminal Supreme Court." 

 

That was many years after the event Ramrod refers to. 
 

 

 

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, Anak Nakal said:

Ha! Thaksin is smarter than military! No Contest.

 

Yeah so smart that he lives in self imposed exile to avoid a jail term imposed whilst his own party were in power and imposed in a case where he had clearly broken an important law. Now lives in a culture which is diagonal to Thai culture,  has done for many years and unless there is a massive breaking of the law, he will die in exile.

 

What a smart man?

 

Go for it el...

 

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Ramrods comment is correct and goes back many years to an enquiry well before the first major election that Thaksin and his original TRT party contested. All the judges bar one gave a verdict of guilty

"well before the first major election that Thaksin and his original TRT party contested."

versus

"A judge, after rendering a not guilty vote in Thaksins favor" stated by Ramrod.

 

Your comment references before Thaksin election but Ramrod references after Thaksin election?

Ramroad implies a court vote in a judicial ruling but you reference an inquiry - those are not the same judicial events.

 

I'd appreciate a citation so I can read for myself what was actually published cited by Ramrod on the matter rather than relying on your position that Ramrod is correct. Otherwise, your anecdotal support for another person's unsubstantiated reference provides no clarification or confirmation. 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

"well before the first major election that Thaksin and his original TRT party contested."

versus

"A judge, after rendering a not guilty vote in Thaksins favor" stated by Ramrod.

 

Your comment references before Thaksin election but Ramrod references after Thaksin election?

Ramroad implies a court vote in a judicial ruling but you reference an inquiry - those are not the same judicial events.

 

I'd appreciate a citation so I can read for myself what was actually published cited by Ramrod on the matter rather than relying on your position that Ramrod is correct. Otherwise, your anecdotal support for another person's unsubstantiated reference provides no clarification or confirmation. 

 

No need for 'proof, the details I wrote are correct, I can remember the events very well. Whether it was a judicial ruling or an inquiry is just your nit picking, the facts remain that all judges except one him voted guilty, one judge didn't and made a statement to the effect he couldn't vote like that because the man had just one an election. Never mind the actual law and the spirit of the law.   

 

You want 'proof', do some searching it might improve your knowledge about the man you try so often to protect.

 

Now go right ahead about junta lovers, junta huggers etc...

 

 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

No need for 'proof, the details I wrote are correct

Thanks for your concession.- no "proof", no reference

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

the man you try so often to protect.

I don't protect the man.

• I protect a fair, unbiased, competent and politically-free judicial system.
• I protect people's inalienable rights and liberties.
• I protect the innocent.
• I protect free and open societies.
• I do not protect a loyalty-based judicial system.
• I do not protect slander and intimidation nor laws that promote such.
• I do not protect absolute rulers who view the populace as their personal servants.

It isn't surprising then that you think I so often protect "the man."

 

 

 

 

[ramrod711]

53 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Thanks for your concession.- no "proof", no reference

I don't protect the man.

• I protect a fair, unbiased, competent and politically-free judicial system.
• I protect people's inalienable rights and liberties.
• I protect the innocent.
• I protect free and open societies.
• I do not protect a loyalty-based judicial system.
• I do not protect slander and intimidation nor laws that promote such.
• I do not protect absolute rulers who view the populace as their personal servants.

It isn't surprising then that you think I so often protect "the man."

 

 

 

 

No question, you are a Saint. Have a nice day.

[rixalex]

On 3/9/2018 at 7:25 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

Are you guys still on this one?

 

It is very simple. 

 

Thaksin is a dodgy character and almost certainly broke some/many laws along the way, just like every single other person in the upper echelons of politics, the military, the bureaucracy and all aspects of life in Thailand.

 

The issue is whether it is possible for him to get a fair trial in Thai courts under the present circumstances. I would say "No!". And may I say that I am both astonished and (frankly) bewildered at your faith in the Thai legal system; I can think of no reason(s) that would justify your views.

 

This is politics. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

And BTW, it is worth remembering that if there were free and fair elections in Thailand, Thaksin would be elected PM, beating out Prayut, Abhisit, and all other comers.

 

I know that.

 

You know that.

 

All of Thailand knows that.

 

End of story.

The issue is whether it is possible for him to get a fair trial in Thai courts under the present circumstances. I would say "No!". And may I say that I am both astonished and (frankly) bewildered at your faith in the Thai legal system; I can think of no reason(s) that would justify your views.

 

The justice system was hardly fair when Thaksin was in power. Everything was stacked in his favour. See the assets concealment case in 2001 for evidence of that. And yet Thaksin was happy to accept the court's verdicts then. I wonder why? When his power was on the decline he then tried to buy a favorable verdict with the money stashed pastry boxes. A former PM being involved with such a blatant attempt to pervert the justice system, should have resulted in a long term behind bars but the money was returned, and it all conveniently got blamed on his lawyers who took the fall for him.

 

Frankly, someone who abuses the justice system as he has, has zero right to expect or demand a fair one. He used the system to his advantage when he had the chance, and if now things are stacked against him, well then that's simply the balance books getting redressed a bit. If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be. If he did have the balls to do that, it would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure and most likely create a seismic shift in the Thai political landscape.

 

[Eric Loh]

12 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Yeah so smart that he lives in self imposed exile to avoid a jail term imposed whilst his own party were in power and imposed in a case where he had clearly broken an important law. Now lives in a culture which is diagonal to Thai culture,  has done for many years and unless there is a massive breaking of the law, he will die in exile.

 

What a smart man?

 

Go for it el...

 

 

An intelligent man like you couldn’t even see the difference between smart and integrity. 

[Eric Loh]

53 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The issue is whether it is possible for him to get a fair trial in Thai courts under the present circumstances. I would say "No!". And may I say that I am both astonished and (frankly) bewildered at your faith in the Thai legal system; I can think of no reason(s) that would justify your views.

 

The justice system was hardly fair when Thaksin was in power. Everything was stacked in his favour. See the assets concealment case in 2001 for evidence of that. And yet Thaksin was happy to accept the court's verdicts then. I wonder why? When his power was on the decline he then tried to buy a favorable verdict with the money stashed pastry boxes. A former PM being involved with such a blatant attempt to pervert the justice system, should have resulted in a long term behind bars but the money was returned, and it all conveniently got blamed on his lawyers who took the fall for him.

 

Frankly, someone who abuses the justice system as he has, has zero right to expect or demand a fair one. He used the system to his advantage when he had the chance, and if now things are stacked against him, well then that's simply the balance books getting redressed a bit. If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be. If he did have the balls to do that, it would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure and most likely create a seismic shift in the Thai political landscape.

 

Still regurgitating the same stuff over and over again. We know his past and he was far from a person who has ethical principles and values. The topic is the judiciary system dispensing convictions to some and not to others. The current environment is nothing short of gross failures in the justice system. As Unmesh Pandey, BP editor in his co-ed article “Hyprocrisy of double standard” was forth front to describe the defining failures of the justice system. Thaksin is therefore right to demand a fair trial. 

[ramrod711]

34 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

An intelligent man like you couldn’t even see the difference between smart and integrity. 

 Thaksin officially declared assets of $17.7 million when he took office in 2001. His wife Potjaman was listed as having $244.7 million. At the time his family is believed to have considerably more than that. Even before he became prime minister Thaksin drew controversy. A week before the 2001 election he was charged with concealing assets from his telecommunications empire by transferring shares to relatives, his chauffeur, maid and others. At one point two of his domestic servants were among the top 10 shareholders in Thailand’s main stock exchange. An investigation after he became prime minister cleared him of these charges.

 

Left politics a billionaire, from a base of 17.7 million and paid his domestic staff very well. Who ever heard of a chauffeur in the top 10 shareholders of the stock exchange. Definitely a man of integrity, who else would sacrifice a spot of there own in the top 10 for a servant. I guess he had more integrity than brains as well.

[Samui Bodoh]

59 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The issue is whether it is possible for him to get a fair trial in Thai courts under the present circumstances. I would say "No!". And may I say that I am both astonished and (frankly) bewildered at your faith in the Thai legal system; I can think of no reason(s) that would justify your views.

 

The justice system was hardly fair when Thaksin was in power. Everything was stacked in his favour. See the assets concealment case in 2001 for evidence of that. And yet Thaksin was happy to accept the court's verdicts then. I wonder why? When his power was on the decline he then tried to buy a favorable verdict with the money stashed pastry boxes. A former PM being involved with such a blatant attempt to pervert the justice system, should have resulted in a long term behind bars but the money was returned, and it all conveniently got blamed on his lawyers who took the fall for him.

 

Frankly, someone who abuses the justice system as he has, has zero right to expect or demand a fair one. He used the system to his advantage when he had the chance, and if now things are stacked against him, well then that's simply the balance books getting redressed a bit. If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be. If he did have the balls to do that, it would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure and most likely create a seismic shift in the Thai political landscape.

 

WOW! I am used to a lack of logic and reason living here in Thailand, but... Wow!

 

Let me see... You state that the legal system in Thailand is "hardly fair" AND offer evidence to support your thoughts.

 

NEXT, you state that " If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be."

 

AND this somehow "...would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure..." to do...what? Stand trial for their crimes? Send themselves to prison? Return power to the people?

 

DUDE, you REALLY REALLY need to get out of the sun.

 

Love him or hate him, Thaksin isn't a fool. And only a fool would think that Thaksin would have a fair trial in Thailand today.

 

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

 Thaksin officially declared assets of $17.7 million when he took office in 2001. His wife Potjaman was listed as having $244.7 million. At the time his family is believed to have considerably more than that. Even before he became prime minister Thaksin drew controversy. A week before the 2001 election he was charged with concealing assets from his telecommunications empire by transferring shares to relatives, his chauffeur, maid and others. At one point two of his domestic servants were among the top 10 shareholders in Thailand’s main stock exchange. An investigation after he became prime minister cleared him of these charges.

 

Left politics a billionaire, from a base of 17.7 million and paid his domestic staff very well. Who ever heard of a chauffeur in the top 10 shareholders of the stock exchange. Definitely a man of integrity, who else would sacrifice a spot of there own in the top 10 for a servant. I guess he had more integrity than brains as well.

I will make this simple for you to understand. He is smart but lacking in integrity. 

[scorecard]

52 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

An intelligent man like you couldn’t even see the difference between smart and integrity. 

 

Ahh your usual diversion....

 

Try again.

 

 

[scorecard]

10 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I will make this simple for you to understand. He is smart but lacking in integrity. 

 

Well there's a milestone, you have actually admitted in writing that he's a rogue? 

[Eric Loh]

15 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Well there's a milestone, you have actually admitted in writing that he's a rogue? 

Took you quite a while but glad it finally got through to you. Now what’s that about rogue. Are you referring to elephant. Then he is not a rogue but certainly lacking in integrity much like most people who has power, wealth and those who hold position. 

[GinBoy2]

On the subject of whether Thaksin is smart of not....of course he is.

He figured out a way to employ a western style democratic process to actually mobilise an electoral base, something no one had done before.

Before him the accepted wisdom was that the elite would simply 'instruct' the masses who the vote for.

He figured out, that as in in all democracies, you bribe the electorate with something, be it tax cuts, increased spending on roads, or as in his case the big thing was the ฿30 health care program.

As corrupt as he probably is, he's pretty much a par with all of them, difference being he actually made a difference to real people and their lives. He also, and I hate to be ethnic here, but he didn't abide by the 'thai' disdain for the Lao & Lanna, who know those black farmer folks!

That's why the poor look past his faults and still adore him

[jayboy]

16 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Well there's a milestone, you have actually admitted in writing that he's a rogue? 

Actually if you bothered to read Eric Loh's posts over a long period of time you would have understood he has had no brief for Thaksin in terms of business integrity or honorable behaviour.This has not stopped you and your kind squealing "Thaksin fanboys" whenever the country's political issues are discussed in a way that challenge your prejudices.No particular quarrel there - it's a forum for all views no matter how reactionary or dotty.Thaksin's significance is of course that of a catalyst, and like many such in history is neither a saint nor unmitigated villain.But historical perspective and nuance is not the comfort zone of those who live out Orwell's 5 minute hate.The key question for such dogmatists is this - why exactly do the reactionary unelected elites hate Thaksin so that it has become a form of madness? But a honest answer to this question will never be forthcoming.

 

But just occasionally a reminder like this is needed.

[rixalex]

19 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Still regurgitating the same stuff over and over again. We know his past and he was far from a person who has ethical principles and values. The topic is the judiciary system dispensing convictions to some and not to others. The current environment is nothing short of gross failures in the justice system. As Unmesh Pandey, BP editor in his co-ed article “Hyprocrisy of double standard” was forth front to describe the defining failures of the justice system. Thaksin is therefore right to demand a fair trial. 

The topic is the judiciary system dispensing convictions to some and not to others. The current environment is nothing short of gross failures in the justice system.

 

Wake up. Things have always been that way.

 

Thaksin is therefore right to demand a fair trial. 

 

He would be if that's actually what he wanted. He doesn't. He doesn't want a fair trial. He wants an unfair trial in which he is guaranteed to be found innocent, or a trial in which he can get off on a technicality, or a trial in which his pastry boxes get accepted and not thrown back in his face. That's his definition of a fair trial.

[rixalex]

19 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

WOW! I am used to a lack of logic and reason living here in Thailand, but... Wow!

 

Let me see... You state that the legal system in Thailand is "hardly fair" AND offer evidence to support your thoughts.

 

NEXT, you state that " If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be."

 

AND this somehow "...would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure..." to do...what? Stand trial for their crimes? Send themselves to prison? Return power to the people?

 

DUDE, you REALLY REALLY need to get out of the sun.

 

Love him or hate him, Thaksin isn't a fool. And only a fool would think that Thaksin would have a fair trial in Thailand today.

 

WOW! I am used to a lack of logic and reason living here in Thailand, but... Wow!

 

Let me see... You state that the legal system in Thailand is "hardly fair" AND offer evidence to support your thoughts.

 

NEXT, you state that " If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be."

 

I don't think people who abuse the system to their advantage have any right to moan when things swing in the other direction. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

 

AND this somehow "...would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure..." to do...what? Stand trial for their crimes? Send themselves to prison? Return power to the people?

 

The current bunch don't want him back. Had you failed to notice that? There is a reason for that. Try thinking why that might be.

 

Love him or hate him, Thaksin isn't a fool. And only a fool would think that Thaksin would have a fair trial in Thailand today.

 

Yes well, I'm starting to get some idea where you stand on the love him, hate him thing.

 

If Thaksin wasn't a fool, he would still be here as leader.

 

Who said he would get a fair trial?

[Samui Bodoh]

29 minutes ago, rixalex said:

WOW! I am used to a lack of logic and reason living here in Thailand, but... Wow!

 

Let me see... You state that the legal system in Thailand is "hardly fair" AND offer evidence to support your thoughts.

 

NEXT, you state that " If he was half the man he is, he would come back and go through the justice system, accepting his fate, whatever it may be."

 

I don't think people who abuse the system to their advantage have any right to moan when things swing in the other direction. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

 

AND this somehow "...would actually put the current bunch under an enormous amount of pressure..." to do...what? Stand trial for their crimes? Send themselves to prison? Return power to the people?

 

The current bunch don't want him back. Had you failed to notice that? There is a reason for that. Try thinking why that might be.

 

Love him or hate him, Thaksin isn't a fool. And only a fool would think that Thaksin would have a fair trial in Thailand today.

 

Yes well, I'm starting to get some idea where you stand on the love him, hate him thing.

 

If Thaksin wasn't a fool, he would still be here as leader.

 

Who said he would get a fair trial?

I'm sorry.

 

I have read and re-read your post(s) a few times now, and all I can see is sputtering "Thaksin- BAD! BAD! BAD! Thaksin BAD!"

 

If there is an argument or a point, it eludes me.

 

Can I suggest a nice nap and a cup of tea, then try again?

 

 

Cheers

[jayboy]

6 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I'm sorry.

 

I have read and re-read your post(s) a few times now, and all I can see is sputtering "Thaksin- BAD! BAD! BAD! Thaksin BAD!"

 

If there is an argument or a point, it eludes me.

 

Can I suggest a nice nap and a cup of tea, then try again?

 

 

Cheers

As I pointed out recently "The key question for such dogmatists is this - why exactly do the reactionary unelected elites hate Thaksin so that it has become a form of madness? But a honest answer to this question will never be forthcoming."

 

As with the reactionary old order, so with their foreign supporters.They probably don't even understand themselves why Thaksin drives them to insanity.If they were one hundredth concerned with the current military regime, their obsession would be more understandable - but on the latter they are surprisingly relaxed.

[pornprong]

7 hours ago, jayboy said:

As I pointed out recently "The key question for such dogmatists is this - why exactly do the reactionary unelected elites hate Thaksin so that it has become a form of madness? But a honest answer to this question will never be forthcoming."

 

As with the reactionary old order, so with their foreign supporters.They probably don't even understand themselves why Thaksin drives them to insanity.If they were one hundredth concerned with the current military regime, their obsession would be more understandable - but on the latter they are surprisingly relaxed.

Why do they hate Thaksin so?

 

Easy.

 

Their way of life is at risk.

 

Their unearned incomes, their unearned privileges, the free passes for the offspring, their immunity from the legal system, their unwarranted sense of superiority.... all at risk should democracy take hold.

[rixalex]

On 3/11/2018 at 9:05 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

I'm sorry.

 

I have read and re-read your post(s) a few times now, and all I can see is sputtering "Thaksin- BAD! BAD! BAD! Thaksin BAD!"

 

If there is an argument or a point, it eludes me.

 

Can I suggest a nice nap and a cup of tea, then try again?

 

 

Cheers

If there is an argument or a point, it eludes me.

 

With your head buried so deep in the sand, i imagine there is much in this debate that eludes you.