Thaksin wants to return home, says Chavalit

[KiwiKiwi]

23 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

And when the results of the crash were evident and disastrous for Thailand, our good general chavalit shared his plan to resolve the situation; open hundreds of Thai restaurants across the world and send the revenue home to Thailand and that would fix everything.

 

The reality was that thousands of Thai at home had lost their jobs but chavalits' idea didn't provide jobs, and the overall margins from his hundreds of restaurants represented quite small amounts of money, plus monitoring all of these venues for drainage of food, cash would require a very large workforce ...

 

Not the best idea.

 

 

 

 

As I recall, Chavlit was also the chump that got his soldiers killed and his ass kicked by a horde of Laotian famers in the 1970's. So even on his best day as a soldier, he was useless.

 

Oddly, you don't read very much about that in Thai history books.

Edited May 19, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, bangrak said:

Carefull what you write, Eric... With your background such choice of words... 

No doubt Thaksin has done his utter best to divide the armed forces, there and then, it seems there were some 'discordances' among the boys in green (more among ranks than between units), and that the airforce had chosen for him, while the navy was strongly opposed. In the end the coup generals have ironed(...) the folds, like by giving the then airforce chief, a personal friend and staunch partisan of Mr T.,  some big, sweet candy sticks in their shop f.i..

What I posted was covered by the media. 

 

Sensible for Thaksin to try tame the military especially the strong influence of the Burapha Group. No elected government feel secured when coups are regular feature of Thailand politics. 

 

 

[mike324]

3 hours ago, sandrew33 said:

So you change tack... awesome. 

 

There was nothing unlawful about his involvement in that land transaction until after he was ousted and a new, suitably vague law, was introduced to make it retrospectively "illegal". I mean seriously... 

 

I mean seriously.....what new vague law are you talking about? No NEW LAW was introduced, now you are just making things up. Please do direct me to articles talking a new law that the junta made up which made the land deal illegal.

[candide]

49 minutes ago, gamini said:

It was not wrong of him to change the law so he could sell his company free of tax for billions of baht. 

This law dates from before his government, as you probably know. 

[jayboy]

53 minutes ago, gamini said:

So according to you, his corruption was legitimate. It was not wrong of him to change the law so he could sell his company free of tax for billions of baht. And according to you, going behind Parliament and giving a huge loan of the taxpayers money to Burma, provided they bought his satellite system is legitimate..

perhaps you could explain this to us.

Also, you make a complete misuse of the word hi so it has only one meaning, those who pretend to be high-class when they are not. Do you live in Thailand?

It's wonderful to see the good old boys back on the forum after what seems a long silence.What could possibly have caused this? Oh, I see - it's because Thaksin is the subject of discussion again so it's time for the five minutes hate.

 

Am I the only one who feels both bored and amused at the same time? Does it need to be explained again that Thaksin's corruption was not in doubt though it consisted more of changing the rules to suit his interests that the outright theft? Does it have to be explained yet again that Thaksin's business morality differs not a jot from most other Sino Thai tycoons? Still for those who can't hold more than one idea in their heads at the same time, I suppose the task is hopeless.

 

[mike324]

 

2 minutes ago, candide said:

It was not wrong of him to change the law so he could sell his company free of tax for billions of baht. 

The law had nothing to do with selling his company free of tax. Thaksin sold his shares on the stock exchange (more like he transfer/sold it to his children through shell companies), so it was exempt from capital gain tax.

 

The kicker is that Thaksin transfer those share to his children at below market price, and then it was sold to Termesak. Revenue Department later ruled that profit from selling company stock for less than market value by board members or employees should be assessed income tax.

 

2 minutes ago, candide said:

This law dates from before his government, as you probably know. 

 

Thaksin changed the law which enable him to sell his company. Large telecommunication companies were not suppose to have over 50% foreign ownership in Thailand. The law does date before his government, but I believe it was never officially sign into effect until Thaksin did so.

 

 Thaksin argued that other companies such as DTAC were already breaking the law by having over 50% ownership. Hence he changed the law to make other companies operate legally. The question should be, was it a conflict of interest that a PM changes that law so his company can be sold legally?

 

[sandrew33]

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

Totally not true.

 

 

So I provide actually commentary and you think merely disagreeing proves something? 

 

In happy to engage in proper debate but at this point you present as a typical TV flog 

[sjaak327]

8 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

"...If there is 'legitimacy' to his 'conviction'..."

 

You know well that he clearly broke a serious Thai law about abuse of authority, a law in place to protect the county from politicians or anybody from stealing the common wealth of all Thais, laws which are in place in 99%, perhaps 100% of all the countries in the world. plus the case was heard and he was found guilty and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment during a time period where his own party was in power.

 

"...would it not be proper or just for hundreds/thousands of other Hi-Sos or Military Officers to be tried and sentenced as well?..."

 

Well you mention hi-so and military officers for the slant your obviously looking for but the truth is it would be more accurate to write would it be more accurate to write "......would it not be proper or just for all folks who have broken laws to be tried and sentenced as well?...

 

That would be a fair appraoch, but do the processes of the law actually work like that?. No.

 

A murderer of a corrupt politician or whoever could claim 'not all murderers have been caught and punished so it's not fair to charge me with murder (or corruption or abuse of authority, or whatever) or punish me. So you should just let me go.

 

I put it back to the poster, would you support this approach to the application and process of the law? 

 

I hope not and I wouldn't want my kids to grow up in a society which supported this appraoch to the application and process of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

First, his conviction in the ratchada land case is everything but uncontested and convincing. Judging from the actual facts of the case the notion that his conviction was politically motivated is a fair assessment. That he was convicted under Samak's watch is meaningless, as at no point in time Thaksin or his 'proxies' had the 'justice system' in their pockets. Thaksin is no Prayuth.....

 

Speaking of Prayuth, a criminal that with indisputable evidence broke the law of the land, and he cannot be convicted for his crime, simply because he granted himself amnesty, even for future transgressions he put himself above the law by pointing the barrel of his gun. And he not only cannot be convicted, he runs this country and is actively prosecuting his political enemies, using article 44 to speed things up.

 

Your analogy is so utterly wrong and besides the point, it isn't even funny.

 

I would support Thaksin goes to prison the minute all NCPO members do the same. Justice is not avoiding punishment by placing yourself above the law by stealing the Thai people sovereignty. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by sjaak327

[sandrew33]

1 hour ago, mike324 said:

I mean seriously.....what new vague law are you talking about? No NEW LAW was introduced, now you are just making things up. Please do direct me to articles talking a new law that the junta made up which made the land deal illegal.

 

The land transaction wasnt unlawful. Did you even read the single article I referred you to? Did you read about the change to the laws AFTER he was deposed? (From memory the authority for the seizing of assets and for much of the "new" interpretation of old law was a military announcement (number 30) which essentially applied a morals test (whose morals?). 

 

The Supreme Court found that Thaksin was a defacto supervisor of a fund regarding the land transaction despite this clearly not being the case. It creatively interpreted a provision outside the written word on authority from the Junta despite clear earlier written advice from the relevant agency pointing out that the transaction was lawful. And as the article suggests why was the massively overpaid price from 1995 never investigated? That was a clear use of government funds to bail out a umm VIP from a family that influences the current regime. 

 

I've dismantled with one article post all of your weak assertions and you want to now argue semantics because you've got nothing left. 

 

You point to me where the explanations I provded to you in that article are wrong? 

 

I'll wait.... 

Edited May 19, 2018 by sandrew33

[The Deerhunter]

6 hours ago, Yann55 said:

 

That's a balanced and interesting point of view (as your posts often are), thank you, and it's refreshing when compared to most of the 'political' comments on this Forum which tend to take an absurdly binary stance (if you criticize T., you must be an ardent P. groupie, and vice versa).

 

Two observations come to mind  :

 

1/ T. is most certainly not much/any different from the 100/800/3000 so called 'elite' who think it their godly right to rule and use this country as if it was their private playground, with no respect whatsoever for the 'populace'. But, and that's a big fat but, he was PM, and in the past 20/30 years, even though the number of PMs in this country is rather mind-boggling, there were not 100/800/3000 of them. In that respect he definitely is different.

 

2/ As to the legitimacy of his conviction... I don't think many people now would deny the fact that he did abuse his position, made heaps of money with/through it, and used is wealth to manipulate the voters. So the argument (which you establish clearly) is really : why condemn him, while so many other wrongdoers who did (and do) similar things get away with it scot-free ?

 

Indeed a fascinating question.

 

Mr T. can (and does) scream urbi et orbi that the case against him is politically motivated, and he's right (albeit not in the least original, because that's the argument all politicians caught red-handed use, everywhere and all the time). Yes it's politically motivated but not fabricated, and definitely not unjustified...

 

His opponents claim that the case against him is based on solid facts, they say his abuse of power was unacceptable, and they're right too. But they're after T., and justice is not their primary concern (to put it mildy). So it's a typical case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

 

Do you remember the movie Rashōmon by Akira Kurosawa (1950)? A murder is being investigated, and all the witnesses are heard. Of course their stories don't match. Then the dead man is interrogated and his account is yet different from the others. One of the judges says 'well, at least now we know the truth', and another immediately replies : 'what makes you think it's the truth ? Dead people can lie too!' One of the deepest (and funniest) movie lines I ever heard !

 

 

It occurs to me that many people for a variety of reasons will agree with the last  bit of section one of your comprehensive reply; me included!   What I would love to know please, is what is YOUR personal view of what is different about him?   I assume what you are saying is that these other rip-off artists are operating in whatever capacity it may be their good fortune  to inhabit but as prime minister the is even more culpable than most of the others because that is the position of extreme senior trust in our land here.  If that is your view then I concur. 

[starky]

7 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I don't think so, he's a clever boy. This has been done to keep the interest in PT, those rural voters sitting on the fence may now be convinced to vote for the party as the 'saviour' is now coming back.

He's a very clever boy when a third hand hearsay account by someone can be taken by so many posters to mean that Thaksin actually said he wants to come back. Maybe he does but nothing in this op suggests he said anything like that.

[The Deerhunter]

6 hours ago, KhunFred said:

Here's the open door they've waited for. Thaksin can return home, the King can grant a pardon and then do the same thing with Yingluck. Happy ever after.

Don't say that.  You have ruined my day.  I think I am going to throw up!!!!!!!!

[Wilsonandson]

From the article I referenced earlier: 
 
"Now that we have gotten the legal technicalities out of the way, a natural question to ask, for our peace of mind, would be – “How did Thaksin’s telecommunications businesses actually fare during his tenure, given all the ‘countless measures’ that he allegedly used to benefit them?” The numbers speak for themselves here. As you noted, the Supreme Court chose to confiscate around US$ 1.4 billion of his fortune (the difference between the shares’ values on the day he took office and the values when they were sold to Temasek). However, the Courts failed to take into account that Shin shares gained 121% over the period, which was actually less than the benchmark Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) index gain of 128%. Some other blue-chip companies made even larger gains, such as Siam Cement (coincidentally 30% owned by the Crown Property Bureau), which gained 717% over the same period. You do the math."
 
So Thaksin forfeited the entire gain on his company interests in the period he was in government. A gain that was lower than the average gain on listed shares in Thailand across the period. 
 
So his net benefit was zero. 
 
If you want to know who really runs "democratic" Thailand look at the families richer than the Shins :) 

No one owns Thailand, you cannot own a country. Name one person in history past or present that has owned or owns a country. The rich elite will have their fingers in a lot of pies, yes. But that's why their rich. We live in a captalist society.

Why can't Thailand get over Thaksin? The sooner these elections take place the better. A democratically elected party with no affiliation to Thaksin. A new government with no junta involement. Gosh, wouldn't that be great.

The future is bright for Thailand if the younger generation get out and vote for a fresh start. No more old school cronies, no more Shinawatra influence, no more military interference. Just a civil government voted in by the people and serving the people. A brighter, better, Bangkok and a triumphant Thailand.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[soalbundy]

15 minutes ago, starky said:

He's a very clever boy when a third hand hearsay account by someone can be taken by so many posters to mean that Thaksin actually said he wants to come back. Maybe he does but nothing in this op suggests he said anything like that.

True but things are being cast in the wind for a purpose, if he really wants to come back it is (A) too early  (B) it would be done more quietly and then only when it had been settled.

[sandrew33]

7 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

No one owns Thailand, you cannot own a country. Name one person in history past or present that has owned or owns a country. The rich elite will have their fingers in a lot of pies, yes. But that's why their rich. We live in a captalist society.

Why can't Thailand get over Thaksin? The sooner these elections take place the better. A democratically elected party with no affiliation to Thaksin. A new government with no junta involement. Gosh, wouldn't that be great.

The future is bright for Thailand if the younger generation get out and vote for a fresh start. No more old school cronies, no more Shinawatra influence, no more military interference. Just a civil government voted in by the people and serving the people. A brighter, better, Bangkok and a triumphant Thailand.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Who said anyone owns Thailand? 

 

And the only people stopping Thailand moving forward are the same ones who have deliberately tried to wind back the people's right to choose for decades... 

 

They aren't getting out of the way and under the current constitution what you hope for simply can't happen. 

 

The lack of any sense of real hope for what you suggest seen in many Thais is merely a rational (& cynical)  response to what they've seen and what they've experienced. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by sandrew33

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, Wilsonandson said:

No one owns Thailand, you cannot own a country. Name one person in history past or present that has owned or owns a country. The rich elite will have their fingers in a lot of pies, yes. But that's why their rich. We live in a captalist society.

Why can't Thailand get over Thaksin? The sooner these elections take place the better. A democratically elected party with no affiliation to Thaksin. A new government with no junta involement. Gosh, wouldn't that be great.

The future is bright for Thailand if the younger generation get out and vote for a fresh start. No more old school cronies, no more Shinawatra influence, no more military interference. Just a civil government voted in by the people and serving the people. A brighter, better, Bangkok and a triumphant Thailand.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

don't forget that the young are Thai, when push comes to shove they wai and grovel as well.

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

No one owns Thailand, you cannot own a country. Name one person in history past or present that has owned or owns a country. The rich elite will have their fingers in a lot of pies, yes. But that's why their rich. We live in a captalist society.

Why can't Thailand get over Thaksin? The sooner these elections take place the better. A democratically elected party with no affiliation to Thaksin. A new government with no junta involement. Gosh, wouldn't that be great.

The future is bright for Thailand if the younger generation get out and vote for a fresh start. No more old school cronies, no more Shinawatra influence, no more military interference. Just a civil government voted in by the people and serving the people. A brighter, better, Bangkok and a triumphant Thailand.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

"A new government with no Junta involvement.."

 

Gosh..whatever you are smoking in that polluted,drowning,overcrowded,miserably planned and totally stuffed city-can you please send me some?

You can't be flogging Thai real estate below the tide-water mark,can you?

[Wilsonandson]

Who said anyone owns Thailand? 
 
And the only people stopping Thailand moving forward are the same ones who have deliberately tried to wind back the people's right to choose for decades... 
 
They aren't getting out of the way and under the current constitution what you hope for simply can't happen. 
 
The lack of any sense of real hope for what you suggest seen in many Thais is merely a sensible response to what they've seen and what they've experienced. 

The people?
Are we talking about the army and the coups?
Or the street protests?
Or the elite?
Or the Bilderberg group?

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[The Deerhunter]

1 hour ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

No, friend, you are far from being the only one. Sometimes, it's really hard not to be bored and amused at the quality of posts by the Shin-haters or Too-lovers.

 

You certainly could never accuse them of over-intellectualising the discussion.

Nor that of some of the critiques of their (our?????) work.

[KiwiKiwi]

5 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Nor that of some of the critiques of their (our?????) work.

You'll need to explain that before I can comment.

[Wilsonandson]

"A new government with no Junta involvement.."
 
Gosh..whatever you are smoking in that polluted,drowning,overcrowded,miserably planned and totally stuffed city-can you please send me some?
You can't be flogging Thai real estate below the tide-water mark,can you?

Well, at the moment only tobbaco but if one day marijuana is legalized for recreational use, then I might indulge myself in a joint or two.

No, I don't sell real estate. I heard you can make a lot of money from it though. A million baht for 1 square meter of land in some areas of Bangkok. If I had some land there, I wouldn't sell it, I'd lease it out. You'd make a fortune.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[The Deerhunter]

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

You'll need to explain that before I can comment.

Sorry.  No can do. I would not wish to be seen as over-intellectualising.  (Gee I hope I spelt that right.)

[KiwiKiwi]

1 minute ago, Wilsonandson said:

Well, at the moment only tobbaco but if one day marijuana is legalized for recreational use, then I might indulge myself in a joint or two.

No, I don't sell real estate. I heard you can make a lot of money from it though. A million baht for 1 square meter of land in some areas of Bangkok. If I had some land there, I wouldn't sell it, I'd lease it out. You'd make a fortune.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

 

I wouldn't live in BKK again this side of hell freezing over, and frankly speaking I would buy a ticket to see it slide gracefully beneath the waves when the sea-level rises. I gather the government is contemplating a wall - great. Given the Thai history with bridges, that would more or less seal the fate.

[KiwiKiwi]

6 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

Sorry.  No can do. I would not wish to be seen as over-intellectualising.  (Gee I hope I spelt that right.)

Yes, I understand and sympathise.

 

Well, it's up to you of course but there are those who think that if you can't explain what you write, then perhaps you shouldn't write it. I, of course have no dog in the race, I'm quite used to reading some of the drivel that passes for debate from Shin-haters.

 

Still, does get tedious having to lower my rationality threshold sometimes. I always know when it's time to take a break, I start to mutter and bump into things.

Edited May 19, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Odysseus123]

5 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

13 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

Well, at the moment only tobbaco but if one day marijuana is legalized for recreational use, then I might indulge myself in a joint or two.

No, I don't sell real estate. I heard you can make a lot of money from it though. A million baht for 1 square meter of land in some areas of Bangkok. If I had some land there, I wouldn't sell it, I'd lease it out. You'd make a fortune.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Of course-my dad always said to me put yer money in real estate,boy!"-And I did.I bought twenty acres and a cow in Bullamakanka,NSW and am waiting for my ship to sail in..

[The Deerhunter]

7 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Yes, I understand and sympathise.

 

Well, it's up to you of course but there are those who think that if you can't explain what you write, then perhaps you shouldn't write it. I, of course have no dog in the race, I'm quite used to reading some of the drivel that passes for debate from Shin-haters.

 

Still, does get tedious having to lower my rationality threshold sometimes. I always know when it's time to take a break, I start to mutter and bump into things.

"When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.  Say something once, why say it again?"    Talking Heads "Psycho Killer."

[KiwiKiwi]

6 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

"When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.  Say something once, why say it again?"    Talking Heads "Psycho Killer."

Evidently not,. Ahh, the immortal David Byrne. The tenor just went up a few points.

 

Surprisingly.

[The Deerhunter]

4 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Evidently not,. Ahh, the immortal David Byrne. The tenor just went up a few points.

 

Surprisingly.

Life is full of surprises.   Leave it at that. Over & out.   Next topic

Edited May 19, 2018 by The Deerhunter

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, mike324 said:

The kicker is that Thaksin transfer those share to his children at below market price, and then it was sold to Termesak. Revenue Department later ruled that profit from selling company stock for less than market value by board members or employees should be assessed income tax.

I am not a tax expert but I am positively sure that all proceeds from share transaction are not taxable. Any profit from shares are declared in your personal or company tax. That’s how I deal with my shares. 

[soalbundy]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

No where in the Thai law for royal pardon state what you said. The process has to be initiated by the cabinet with the reason/s stated. In Thaksin case probably be miscarriage of justice. 

and a large envelope to be shared amongst the cabinet