am sure he will have a sleepless nights after this... Naaah just kidding!! For him not more important then a fly on the wall. 

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Shame Thailand isn't more like Malaysia.

Maybe there is a lesson somewhere. Bringing charges and convicting criminals are quite different in an elected government and a junta government 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Court rules former PM can be tried in absentia over multibillionbaht loan

But Vorayuth Yoovidhaya can't be tried in absentia for killing a cop, but instead the statues of limitation are allowed to run out. 

Different tiers of justice for different individuals.  Explain that.

If only they put 10% of the effort into tracking down Vorayuth Yoovidhya.

 

They'll be issuing arrest warrants for Thaksin for the next 150 years.

The Thai Supreme Court has very little credibility. Any court falling within the influence of Little P. has little to no credibility. Independence? Yeah right. So, this warrant would mean little. Especially since there is so little moral conviction behind it. It is nothing but a show. They do not want him back. Never did. Never will. He would make too much trouble if he was here. As destructive as some of his acts have been, he remains the only PM in the countries history, to do real work and pass real policy that benefited the masses. Little P. is not even 1% the man, that Thaksin is. And I do not like Thaksin. But the current leader is like a little rancid peanut in comparison. 

30 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

I doubt many have any sympathy left for the career criminal who continues to insult their intelligence with his denials of ever doing anything wrong.

Which again raises the question: why, if his popularity waned to such an extent did the coup forestall the election, and why is the junta the coup installed so loath to allow an election? 

 

Incidentally, he is not my "hero of the people". That is a rather silly piece of graffiti to spray around, which may serve to cover up our fundimental disagreement - that the Thai people should be allowed to choose whether or not they want him to govern them. I believe that should be the case, and is central to the whole argument and indeed to the whole political and social train wreck which is tragically engulfing this country. You clearly do not think they should have the choice - and presumably favour a more authoritarian solution. I will admit to regarding him, warts and all, as someone I personally would rather have in charge than the current bunch, but that is a matter for the Thai people to choose, not me, you nor the military and their wealthy sponsors. I think the authoritarian "solution" will if I can extend the metaphor, result in yet another train ploughing into the wreckage.

16 minutes ago, JAG said:

Which again raises the question: why, if his popularity waned to such an extent did the coup forestall the election, and why is the junta the coup installed so loath to allow an election? 

 

Incidentally, he is not my "hero of the people". That is a rather silly piece of graffiti to spray around, which may serve to cover up our fundimental disagreement - that the Thai people should be allowed to choose whether or not they want him to govern them. I believe that should be the case, and is central to the whole argument and indeed to the whole political and social train wreck which is tragically engulfing this country. You clearly do not think they should have the choice - and presumably favour a more authoritarian solution. I will admit to regarding him, warts and all, as someone I personally would rather have in charge than the current bunch, but that is a matter for the Thai people to choose, not me, you nor the military and their wealthy sponsors. I think the authoritarian "solution" will if I can extend the metaphor, result in yet another train ploughing into the wreckage.

Please Baerboxer or someone else please put up a solid point by point argument against JAG  here. I confess to being completely persuaded by what he says already and having come to that view independently but I think he puts it very well here. What am I missing?

13 minutes ago, tomta said:

Please Baerboxer or someone else please put up a solid point by point argument against JAG  here. I confess to being completely persuaded by what he says already and having come to that view independently but I think he puts it very well here. What am I missing?

You are missing nothing, JAG is correct.

 

It is very simple; there are those in Thailand who, for reasons that I confess that I don't really understand, feel that they have the right to rule over everyone, be accountable to no one and act as they please. And get filthy rich as they do it.

 

Thaksin's crime was to build support among the people and create a situation whereby any future ruler had to gain support from the common man. And, they hate it!

 

Yes, there are "criminal" charges against Thaksin, and yes he is almost certainly "guilty" on all charges (I say "almost" as I view any charges laid in the upper echelons of Thai politics to essentially be meaningless, see General Rolex).

 

It is as simple as it is incomprehensible;

 

Might is right and screw the poor

 

47 minutes ago, JAG said:

Which again raises the question: why, if his popularity waned to such an extent did the coup forestall the election, and why is the junta the coup installed so loath to allow an election? 

In order to answer that question, you need to take the fact that your question is specific to Thaksin out of it as follows.

 

The power to rule Thailand has lurched between two "camps" in the last 30 years or it could even be argued since the end of WWII.

 

Many powerful and wealthy people have a foot in both camps. The camps are not mutually exclusive. Important people will have family members high up in both camps and important people will have alliances in both camps but there can only be one top dog at any time.

 

The first camp is centred around the nexus of the military-civil service-judiciary. Their claimed raison d'etre is to defend the country and its monarchy from "enemies". Their power comes from support of the middle classes, support from the South, the inherent power that comes from positions in the military, civil service and the judiciary and ultimately from soldiers with guns.

 

The second camp is centred around the power held by local political factions and the alliances they have with the police in their area. Together they are able to become wealthy and more powerful but typically only within a limited geographical area. They require a national political leader and elections to allow them to glue together sufficient factions from various regions to take control of power nationally and thus the national budget. Their power is derived from the ballot box and their support from the masses.

 

Thaksin and the Shinawatra family has been the only national political leader in recent times to be able to stick together all these factions from around the country wresting power away from the military and their friends. But it doesn't have to be the Shinawatra's, it could be and it will be another politician who succeeds in mobilising national support and when he or she does, the military will lose power again and the cycle of coups will continue.

 

Thus the military wants to postpone and emasculate the election process for as long as it can.

24 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

 

...Thus the military wants to postpone and emasculate the election process for as long as it can.

Yes, I agree with your summary, and your explanation as to why the military are so loath to hold an election.

 

My question was perhaps rhetorical - aimed at getting an explanation from the TVF junta justifying camp.

 

My personal position, not that it matters one jot, (and I honestly don't know where you stand) is that an alliance of powerful wealthy people put in place by a ballot has legitimacy as a government, however unsavoury they may be; a similar alliance put in power by a coup does not.

30 minutes ago, JAG said:

Yes, I agree with your summary, and your explanation as to why the military are so loath to hold an election.

 

My question was perhaps rhetorical - aimed at getting an explanation from the TVF junta justifying camp.

 

My personal position, not that it matters one jot, (and I honestly don't know where you stand) is that an alliance of powerful wealthy people put in place by a ballot has legitimacy as a government, however unsavoury they may be; a similar alliance put in power by a coup does not.

Totally agree that whoever is put in place by a ballot is a legitimate government. But governance does not stop at the ballot box. It then progress’s into also complying to the laws and statutes of that governance. And that is where the likes of Thaksin and his puppet regimes failed miserably. And Thailand is not a democratic country that has its army held at length. It has statutes that allow the Army to intervene as unsavoury as that is for us from western democracies. At the end of the day it does not matter a crap as the pointless merry go round of equally corrupt parties from all sides is  never going to go away. Simply put Thailand chooses to hold itself prisoner to patronage which will never allow democracy. 

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Maybe there is a lesson somewhere. Bringing charges and convicting criminals are quite different in an elected government and a junta government 

 

Making sure the defendant doesn't do a runner is the responsibility of the police and security services. 

 

Unless of course, no one really wants them to stay.

12 minutes ago, Roadman said:

Totally agree that whoever is put in place by a ballot is a legitimate government. But governance does not stop at the ballot box. It then progress’s into also complying to the laws and statutes of that governance. And that is where the likes of Thaksin and his puppet regimes failed miserably. And Thailand is not a democratic country that has its army held at length. It has statutes that allow the Army to intervene as unsavoury as that is for us from western democracies. At the end of the day it does not matter a crap as the pointless merry go round of equally corrupt parties from all sides is  never going to go away. Simply put Thailand chooses to hold itself prisoner to patronage which will never allow democracy. 

 

Spot on Roadman! Once an elected government chooses to break, ignore or put itself above laws then it looses all legitimacy.

 

We had a PTP Minister and DPM openly threatening judges with dire consequences if they "made the wrong decisions" and a fast developing kelptocracy. Not sure any country in the Western Democracies has had to deal with that, or how they would do so.

13 minutes ago, Roadman said:

And that is where the likes of Thaksin and his puppet regimes failed miserably.

Governments are not faultless and they can fail to deliver to the people. That’s what election are for. 

39 minutes ago, JAG said:

Yes, I agree with your summary, and your explanation as to why the military are so loath to hold an election.

 

My question was perhaps rhetorical - aimed at getting an explanation from the TVF junta justifying camp.

 

My personal position, not that it matters one jot, (and I honestly don't know where you stand) is that an alliance of powerful wealthy people put in place by a ballot has legitimacy as a government, however unsavoury they may be; a similar alliance put in power by a coup does not.

 

Agreed. But once that elected alliance of powerful wealthy people openly lies, cheats, breaks or ignore laws and openly threatens the judiciary, treating the electorate with contempt, then that legitimacy ends.

 

The issue is whether a country has the structures in place to deal with that and what those structures are. There are many examples of governments coming to power through elections and then becoming thoroughly corrupt whilst clinging on to power.

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Governments are not faultless and they can fail to deliver to the people. That’s what election are for. 

 

Not just a question of faultless and being voted out as inept.

 

Shin governments were all exposed as corrupt. 

 

Big difference between making mistakes or pursuing genuine policies that fail, and governing to suck as much out the trough to line your own pockets as possible.

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Making sure the defendant doesn't do a runner is the responsibility of the police and security services. 

 

Unless of course, no one really wants them to stay.

Unless of course, some one need to be the judge, jury and executioner all roll in one. 

31 minutes ago, Roadman said:

And Thailand is not a democratic country that has its army held at length. It has statutes that allow the Army to intervene as unsavoury as that is for us from western democracies.

I am unaware of these statutes, at least  that allowed the specific coups of 2006 and 2014. States of emergencies perhaps -m although it would be a good reform to give the power to declare these to an elected government not the army. If these  statutes had existed, why would the army always need to write an amnesty for itself. Can you cite these statutes?

The idea that it's a merry-go round, and that things will always be the same is superficially appealing. But the idea that the people can have the power and that democracy is always a work in progress and nowhere is it ever perfect mean that every victory , even small ones, against unjust power, is a good thing. IF not, we must live in a Hobbesian society which is always in a  state of war of all against all.

oh he must be shaking.

the junta has a very tenuous grasp of reality. 

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Which again raises the question: why, if his popularity waned to such an extent did the coup forestall the election, and why is the junta the coup installed so loath to allow an election? 

 

Incidentally, he is not my "hero of the people". That is a rather silly piece of graffiti to spray around, which may serve to cover up our fundimental disagreement - that the Thai people should be allowed to choose whether or not they want him to govern them. I believe that should be the case, and is central to the whole argument and indeed to the whole political and social train wreck which is tragically engulfing this country. You clearly do not think they should have the choice - and presumably favour a more authoritarian solution. I will admit to regarding him, warts and all, as someone I personally would rather have in charge than the current bunch, but that is a matter for the Thai people to choose, not me, you nor the military and their wealthy sponsors. I think the authoritarian "solution" will if I can extend the metaphor, result in yet another train ploughing into the wreckage.

 

I would guess, and it's only a guess, that the Junta do not want an election unless they are sure the result will be to their liking. There are other credible opponents who don't have the severe baggage that Thaksin does. Although he remains the convenient go-to bogeyman because of the long list of outstanding cases and being a fugitive.

 

I agree totally that the Thai people should choose who governs them. But there must be mechanisms in place in any country to prevent criminals from controlling governments and dealing with governments / politicians that break laws. If Thaksin were ever to return he would simply re-start his plans to cement himself into the type of mock democracy his friend Hun Sen is trying to create. And like Hun Sen he would turn to China for friendship as the West started to criticize as he dismantled real democracy. And that's the root problem. None of the old dinosaurs grabbing for power are really remotely interested in democracy and all that it entails which is far more than elections. They will use it while it gives them a verdict they like. And discard it once it doesn't. If Thaksin could finance and orchestrate a coup he probably would. It's all about grabbing and holding onto power and being in control of the assets, then milking them.

Thaksin tried to muffle the media and critics with defamation suits, and some pretty unsavory intimidation when needed. The Junta have article 44 and attitude adjustments.

 

PTP will be as displeased as the Junta should a real political party with real reforms be elected. It would spoil the game for them.

17 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Unless of course, some one need to be the judge, jury and executioner all roll in one. 

 

Which isn't the case here.

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Which isn't the case here.

Which explain your tunnel vision thinking. 

12 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Which explain your tunnel vision thinking. 

 

As opposed to your "Thaksin him good man, never ever do anything wrong" tunnel vision.

 

Read the facts about the Krungthai Bank Case. Read the facts about the low interest loan of Thai tax payer's money to the Burmese Military government so the could buy from Shin family businesses. 

 

But his little black book probably isn't so little. And might have come out if lil'sis hadn't been able to do a runner too.

 

We shall see if little Oak is next; or will it be No 1 cousin if his appeal against 2 years in jail doesn't go well?

15 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I would guess, and it's only a guess, that the Junta do not want an election unless they are sure the result will be to their liking. There are other credible opponents who don't have the severe baggage that Thaksin does. Although he remains the convenient go-to bogeyman because of the long list of outstanding cases and being a fugitive.

 

I agree totally that the Thai people should choose who governs them. But there must be mechanisms in place in any country to prevent criminals from controlling governments and dealing with governments / politicians that break laws. If Thaksin were ever to return he would simply re-start his plans to cement himself into the type of mock democracy his friend Hun Sen is trying to create. And like Hun Sen he would turn to China for friendship as the West started to criticize as he dismantled real democracy. And that's the root problem. None of the old dinosaurs grabbing for power are really remotely interested in democracy and all that it entails which is far more than elections. They will use it while it gives them a verdict they like. And discard it once it doesn't. If Thaksin could finance and orchestrate a coup he probably would. It's all about grabbing and holding onto power and being in control of the assets, then milking them.

Thaksin tried to muffle the media and critics with defamation suits, and some pretty unsavory intimidation when needed. The Junta have article 44 and attitude adjustments.

 

PTP will be as displeased as the Junta should a real political party with real reforms be elected. It would spoil the game for them.

1) Thaksin was standing for re-election at the time of the 2006 coup. He and his government had resigned and called an election in the face of significant extra parliamentary opposition and protest. That act was a significant check on power. The coup forestalled it.

 

2) Yingluck had called an election under similar pressure, and had also been removed from office by a court. Again, significant checks. Again the coup forestalled an election.

 

3) Your third point, about Thaksin "doing a Hun Sen' is really only supposition, with no concrete grounds behind it. At the risk of being accused of "but, but, but..." posting, the very same case could be made for the junta following the Burmese militaries playbook.

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

As opposed to your "Thaksin him good man, never ever do anything wrong" tunnel vision.

 

Read the facts about the Krungthai Bank Case. Read the facts about the low interest loan of Thai tax payer's money to the Burmese Military government so the could buy from Shin family businesses. 

 

But his little black book probably isn't so little. And might have come out if lil'sis hadn't been able to do a runner too.

 

We shall see if little Oak is next; or will it be No 1 cousin if his appeal against 2 years in jail doesn't go well?

Let’s see when the trial is over in absentia, Interpol will issue a red notice. Will see how the world see the trial. 

12 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Why do they do this? They just look like fools...

 

Thaksin isn't coming back; that was the lesson from the events of 2013 before Suthep's rent-a-mob took over the protests.

 

You can not extradite him; no government will hand over a former Prime Minister to a Military Junta, it simply isn't done. Further, the Junta has said that Interpol declared the case against Yingluck to be "politically-motivated", it is a logical assumption that the same would hold for any case against Thaksin.

 

The Junta may believe that the Thai people would have less of an opinion of Thaksin based on this case, but it is likely that the opposite is true; Thai people know the 'justice' system is rigged and it will likely garner sympathy for Thaksin rather than any bad impression.

 

As above, stop this nonsense. Anyone who already dislikes Thaksin will continue to dislike him, everyone else will see the Junta using and abusing the Justice system for a politically-motivated witch hunt.

 

You are simply making yourselves look scared and stupid.

 

 

He ain't coming back with arrest warrants over his head, and probably no foreign country he'd go to is going to extradite him.

 

But as to the question -- why do they pursue it? At least one answer to that question, among other reasons, is -- because he's GUILTY of what he's accused of in this and the other cases.

 

Even my friend that used to be a member of parliament for TRT say that "Dr. Thaksin is the smartest Thai alive but sadly he used all the power for himself and not for Thailand and the Thai people!".... And that is from someone that knows Thaksin, Yingluck and Chalerm in person (he even asked me to become Yingluck's "English coach"... 2 weeks before the protests started...)!

I wounder when the people still supporting Thaksin and Yingluck will come to the same enlightenment!?

Here's da news. Thaksin in not fleeing, he's fled.

 

Now he's living the life of Reilly and poking quite a lot of fun at the Thai authorities who gave him permission to go to the Olympics in China. From which he never returned.

 

Oops.

10 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Well, he was allowed to leave. That’s absolutely accurate. 

No it is not accurate.  He was at A UN conference when he was overthrown.

He then returned about 18 months later and again left the country openly.  He then refused to return.

29 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

He ain't coming back with arrest warrants over his head, and probably no foreign country he'd go to is going to extradite him.

 

But as to the question -- why do they pursue it? At least one answer to that question, among other reasons, is -- because he's GUILTY of what he's accused of in this and the other cases.

 

 

Yes, but the Red Bull clown is also guilty, yet the government don't seem to be making much effort to get him back. Perhaps because the bribes have already been paid?

 

Oh. You don't think foreign governments know that Thailand is corrupt from the top to the bottom? Seriously?