Another warrant issued for Thaksin’s arrest

[sjaak327]

19 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

"They sure as hell were voted in democratically. Their power base if you will was limited to four years and subjected to checks and balances and various other "independent" agencies that try to meddle into their administration. " 

 

That's if you believe thaksins' and his puppets 'democracy' model is credible. 

 

 

It is a lot more credible, and legal than  what Thailand currently has, that much is absolutely certain. But I get it, the Thai electorate is of no concern. 

 

No matter the arguments, Thaksin's two governments operated under the 1997 Thai constitution, the real people's constitution, and it provided a solid framework for democracy. The 2006 constitution under which Samak's, Abhisith's and Yingluck's government operated was already less democratic, but heaps better than what the future governement will have to operate under. Thanks to the Junta, Thailand is decades removed from democracy. And the people cheering them on need to wake up, this is about power nothing more. Both side are corrupt to the core, but at least one side was subjected to checks and balances, the other side has absolute power, and this for at least two more decades. People never learn about the past, quite amazing. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by sjaak327

[bannork]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

As opposed to the current lot, that completely abolished checks and balances, but this time without a valid mandate. 

 

The very fact that at least two PTP pm's have been put out of office further highlights the inaccuracy of your statement. Thaksin at no time had absolute power, at no time was able to remove checks and balances, was at any point in time accountable, and never threw out a constitution and replaced it with his own. Naieve ? Give it a rest, you have no leg to stand on. 

I'm not talking about the junta in power now. That's another story, another thread.

This thread is about Thaksin.

Here's an extract from the link I enclose https://nautilus.org/apsnet/0634a-rowley-html/

Once in government Thaksin relied on the strong executive created by the 1997 reforms to push through his policies. However, he was hostile to the independent commissions established by the reforms. Even before he became Prime Minister, they had subjected his financial affairs to unwelcome scrutiny. Under the new laws, politicians had to declare all their assets. Thaksin divested himself of his personal wealth by giving it away – to his wife, his children, and to his household servants. This was universally believed to be no more than a ruse. A corruption investigation charged that Thaksin had acted dishonestly and illegally, and was unfit to hold public office. He challenged this and the courts ruled in his favour. From that point on, Thaksin regarded Thailand’s watchdog agencies as enemies, and sought to emasculate them at every opportunity. [5]

Thaksin was a pragmatist, and his approach to government was generally cautious. He introduced the restructuring he wanted in piecemeal ways rather than in a “big bang”. Nevertheless, the pattern became clear within a couple of years. In keeping with the new management theories he had imbibed, this involved devolving responsibility while centralising power in the hands of senior politicians, his own in particular. Thaksin acquired unprecedented powers of patronage, and he used them to punish opponents and reward supporters. Those he rewarded frequently turned out to be members of the Shinawatra clan, friends from his cadet school class, or business associates.

Thaksin dominated the media through both government and the private sector. Until the 1990s, radio and television broadcasting had been in the hands of either the military or the government. When this market was liberalised in the 1990s, Thaksin’s Shin Corp quickly established a dominant position in the private sector. Newspapers in Thailand were privately owned. They had previously been strictly censored by the military, but when this was abandoned in the 1990s they had blossomed. However, even when his political position seemed invincible, Thaksin went to considerable lengths to shape media reporting of his activities. Private business investment, public advertising revenue, and personal influence with editors and journalists were all manipulated strenuously to this end. Even the pro-government Bangkok Post was not exempt. The dismissal of its editor, Veera Pratheepchaikul, in 2004 was widely attributed to pressure on management from Thaksin. Veera alleged that government interference in the press was worse under Thaksin than it had been under Thailand’s military dictatorships. [6] But despite this pressure – perhaps in reaction against it – critical reporting persisted.

 

[sjaak327]

13 minutes ago, bannork said:

I'm not talking about the junta in power now. That's another story, another thread.

This thread is about Thaksin.

Here's an extract from the link I enclose https://nautilus.org/apsnet/0634a-rowley-html/

Once in government Thaksin relied on the strong executive created by the 1997 reforms to push through his policies. However, he was hostile to the independent commissions established by the reforms. Even before he became Prime Minister, they had subjected his financial affairs to unwelcome scrutiny. Under the new laws, politicians had to declare all their assets. Thaksin divested himself of his personal wealth by giving it away – to his wife, his children, and to his household servants. This was universally believed to be no more than a ruse. A corruption investigation charged that Thaksin had acted dishonestly and illegally, and was unfit to hold public office. He challenged this and the courts ruled in his favour. From that point on, Thaksin regarded Thailand’s watchdog agencies as enemies, and sought to emasculate them at every opportunity. [5]

Thaksin was a pragmatist, and his approach to government was generally cautious. He introduced the restructuring he wanted in piecemeal ways rather than in a “big bang”. Nevertheless, the pattern became clear within a couple of years. In keeping with the new management theories he had imbibed, this involved devolving responsibility while centralising power in the hands of senior politicians, his own in particular. Thaksin acquired unprecedented powers of patronage, and he used them to punish opponents and reward supporters. Those he rewarded frequently turned out to be members of the Shinawatra clan, friends from his cadet school class, or business associates.

Thaksin dominated the media through both government and the private sector. Until the 1990s, radio and television broadcasting had been in the hands of either the military or the government. When this market was liberalised in the 1990s, Thaksin’s Shin Corp quickly established a dominant position in the private sector. Newspapers in Thailand were privately owned. They had previously been strictly censored by the military, but when this was abandoned in the 1990s they had blossomed. However, even when his political position seemed invincible, Thaksin went to considerable lengths to shape media reporting of his activities. Private business investment, public advertising revenue, and personal influence with editors and journalists were all manipulated strenuously to this end. Even the pro-government Bangkok Post was not exempt. The dismissal of its editor, Veera Pratheepchaikul, in 2004 was widely attributed to pressure on management from Thaksin. Veera alleged that government interference in the press was worse under Thaksin than it had been under Thailand’s military dictatorships. [6] But despite this pressure – perhaps in reaction against it – critical reporting persisted.

 

No, the Junta is very very relevant, as it is they that changed laws retroactively and targeting just political office holders. I am not claiming Thaksin was a saint, I am not claiming he wasn't corrupt. I am claiming that he was a saint compared to the current government, that now act as his judge and executioner. All that Thaksin alledgely did in that article, is being employed right now, except a few leagues worse and with absolute impunity. How anyone can really believe matters have been improved is beyond logic, the evidence they have become progressively worse is overwhelming, and absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. 

 

In any case, absolutely nothing in this article contradicts the thing that I claimed, absolutely nothing.

Edited July 7, 2018 by sjaak327

[bannork]

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No, the Junta is very very relevant, as it is they that changed laws retroactively and targeting just political office holders. I am not claiming Thaksin was a saint, I am not claiming he wasn't corrupt. I am claiming that he was a saint compared to the current government, that now act as his judge and executioner. All that Thaksin alledgely did in that article, is being employed right now, except a few leagues worse and with absolute impunity. How anyone can really believe matters have been improved is beyond logic, the evidence they have become progressively worse is overwhelming, and absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. 

Neither are saints and hopefully one day all will be revealed of what has happened up to the present day.. But that depends on the Thai people making the right choices at the next election and voting  for clean politicians of the future.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Edited July 7, 2018 by bannork

[sjaak327]

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

Neither are saints and hopefully one day all will be revealed of what has happened up to the present day.. But that depends on the Thai people making the right choices at the next election and voting  for clean politicians of the future.

I'm not holding my breath though.

There is no such thing as clean politicians, nowhere in the world. That is exactly why mechanism are in place to keep those politicians in check. Those mechanism were in place when Thaksin and his proxies were voted in, they are totally absent now. Of course the current lot wasn't even voted in, just to add insult to the jury. Key thing in a democracy is accepting the choice of the majority. That is maybe the biggest problem in Thailand, unfortunately there is a small group, that traditionally owned the country, who can and have turned non acceptance into coups, and for the good of Thailand this has to be stopped. Even if that means that a crook like Thaksin is able to govern the country. 

 

But the sad fact is, that with this Junta, the above is not possible, and thai people can make any choice they like, these people still have the power, by virtue of their constitution. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by sjaak327

[bannork]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

There is no such thing as clean politicians, nowhere in the world. That is exactly why mechanism are in place to keep those politicians in check. Those mechanism were in place when Thaksin and his proxies were voted in, they are totally absent now.

Thaksin overrode all the checks and balances during his tenure, ensuring his men occupied positions on the independent bodies. It was a tragedy because the 1997 constitution was designed to ensure a stable government. It favoured governent consisting of only one or two parties to ensure  policies were followed through with a sense of continuity, not suffer from constant change with the revolving door syndrome of multi party coalitions.

Unfortunately the constitution writers hadn't forseen the rise on a billionnaire with a lust for absolute power. Some the strong and stable government turned into a police state with weak and compromised 'independent' agencies.

As you say, under the junta there are no checks at all. We can only pray the Thai saying of old will come true one day- When the tide recedes  the stumps of dead trees are exposed

By the way, I have to say I disagree about there being no clean politicians! I personally know two whom I believe are clean.

 

[scorecard]

57 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

It is a lot more credible, and legal than  what Thailand currently has, that much is absolutely certain. But I get it, the Thai electorate is of no concern. 

 

No matter the arguments, Thaksin's two governments operated under the 1997 Thai constitution, the real people's constitution, and it provided a solid framework for democracy. The 2006 constitution under which Samak's, Abhisith's and Yingluck's government operated was already less democratic, but heaps better than what the future governement will have to operate under. Thanks to the Junta, Thailand is decades removed from democracy. And the people cheering them on need to wake up, this is about power nothing more. Both side are corrupt to the core, but at least one side was subjected to checks and balances, the other side has absolute power, and this for at least two more decades. People never learn about the past, quite amazing. 

 

 

Diversion, diversion, and you conveniently ignore the point of my post.

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

By the way, before you bring in the 'junta lover' play, I fully agree the junta has lost the plot and has lost focus, and i agree in theory military governments are not desirable.  

 

But there is another point, if politicians and parties respected the 'democracy' values, processes, and kept the pillars of democracy untouched and strong, built the checks and balances and made them totally transparent then there would be no need for intervention.

 

A party owned by one man (family) which, outside of the formal process, pays people to vote yes, as ordered, never add to parliamentary discussion (because they are not allowed to speak) is not what democracy is all about.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by scorecard

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

Thaksin overrode all the checks and balances during his tenure, ensuring his men occupied positions on the independent bodies. It was a tragedy because the 1997 constitution was designed to ensure a stable government. It favoured governent consisting of only one or two parties to ensure  policies were followed through with a sense of continuity, not suffer from constant change with the revolving door syndrome of multi party coalitions.

Unfortunately the constitution writers hadn't forseen the rise on a billionnaire with a lust for absolute power. Some the strong and stable government turned into a police state with weak and compromised 'independent' agencies.

As you say, under the junta there are no checks at all. We can only pray the Thai saying of old will come true one day- When the tide recedes  the stumps of dead trees are exposed

By the way, I have to say I disagree about there being no clean politicians! I personally know two whom I believe are clean.

 

Oh sure, that was a bit of an exageration. However I firmly believe that the electorate should be able to choose whomever they want, providing it is within the law. 

[Fish Head Soup]

59 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Plus he threatened and did sue several Thai reporters and journalists and often just refused to answer their questions.

I remember he introduced a stick with a cross on it to press conferences at one point and he would hold it in the air to indicate he would not answer a particular question if he decided it was not a 'good question'.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

Diversion, diversion, and you conveniently ignore the point of my post.

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

 

No diversion, you claimed that Thaksin's puppet democracy model was not credible, but the fact is, four consequetive election victories indicate that the Thai electorate does seem to think it is very credible, and that is really all that matters. And again, it is a lot more credible and legal than staging coups and ruling under absolute power. How anyone can call that a diversion is beyond me, they are merely facts. 

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, Fish Head Soup said:

I remember he introduced a stick with a cross on it to press conferences at one point and he would hold it in the air to indicate he would not answer a particular question if he decided it was not a 'good question'.

Hmm, a bit like Prayuth, even though he is known to even have said, don't ask questions or else !

 

 

[scorecard]

13 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Oh sure, that was a bit of an exageration. However I firmly believe that the electorate should be able to choose whomever they want, providing it is within the law. 

 

I hope that means within the spirit and the intent of the law!

Edited July 7, 2018 by scorecard

[scorecard]

6 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No diversion, you claimed that Thaksin's puppet democracy model was not credible, but the fact is, four consequetive election victories indicate that the Thai electorate does seem to think it is very credible, and that is really all that matters. And again, it is a lot more credible and legal than staging coups and ruling under absolute power. How anyone can call that a diversion is beyond me, they are merely facts. 

 

None so blind as those that don't want to see...

 

[sjaak327]

 
None so blind as those that don't want to see...
 

Oh but I can see just fine. None of what I said is not factual

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[bannork]

8 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No diversion, you claimed that Thaksin's puppet democracy model was not credible, but the fact is, four consequetive election victories indicate that the Thai electorate does seem to think it is very credible, and that is really all that matters. And again, it is a lot more credible and legal than staging coups and ruling under absolute power. How anyone can call that a diversion is beyond me, they are merely facts. 

it's not all that matters. A government must be subject to checks and balances to limit corruption and nepotism. Thaksin tried to override all of that. He really believed he should not be subject to any scrutiny. In his mind, by calling a snalp election, he could declare that as the winner by a majority of the votes, no one had the right to scrutinise him.

[sjaak327]

it's not all that matters. A government must be subject to checks and balances to limit corruption and nepotism. Thaksin tried to override all of that. He really believed he should not be subject to any scrutiny. In his mind, by calling a snalp election, he could declare that as the winner by a majority of the votes, no one had the right to scrutinise him.

He might have tried, he might have believed, at no point in time it became a reality. The system did work.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[bannork]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

He might have tried, he might have believed, at no point in time it became a reality. The system did work.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

Yes, after the 2006 coup.

[sjaak327]

Not in a thread about Thaksin's alleged crimes.

Why not? This thread is not just about Thaksin's crimes. The key point of this thread is the law change executed by the junta, that scrapped the statue of limitations and made trial in absentia possible just for political office holders. And it is about them applying the law retroactively to a case over a decade old.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[pornprong]

14 minutes ago, scorecard said:

The thread is about thaksins' arrest warrants, your just, again, trying to divert folks away from the point of the thread. 

By the way where's eric loh, has he retired?

You don't think it warrants a comparison?

Your mate gives a list of reasons why Thaksin is no good, problem is the list describes Prayuth far more accurately than it does Thaksin - wouldn't you agree?

[bannork]

5 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Why not? This thread is not just about Thaksin's crimes. The key point of this thread is the law change executed by the junta, that scrapped the statue of limitations and made trial in absentia possible just for political office holders. And it is about them applying the law retroactively to a case over a decade old.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

In my view It is unfair a defendant can escape justice by fleeing. The law should have been changed years ago, and for all crimes. Being only applicable to political office holders is undoubtedly aimed at Thaksin but it could come back to bite members of the present and any future government too.

[sjaak327]

In my view It is unfair a defendant can escape justice by fleeing. The law should have been changed years ago, and for all crimes. Being only applicable to political office holders is undoubtedly aimed at Thaksin but it could come back to bite members of the present and any future government too.

Future governments probably, current no. They have amnesty.

At the time of the alleged crime that possibility existed, so it is unjust to retroactively apply the new law on old cases. Even if convicted, the verdict will mean nothing outside of Thailand. As I said before, this case and the fact that it commences just now, has one purpose, to reduce Thaksin's electoral popularity.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[sjaak327]

Yes, after the 2006 coup.

No before the 2006 coup. There was nothing wrong with the 1997 constitution, and Thailand should return to it.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[tifino]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Yes you hit the nail right on the head.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

 

Nail!!   555...

 

he 'bolt'ed

 

they are 'screw'ed!!

[khunken]

59 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No before the 2006 coup. There was nothing wrong with the 1997 constitution, and Thailand should return to it.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

Wrong. There were serious flaws in the 1997 constitution. Two major ones:

No effort to make the Senate a real check/balance, rather just allow the wives, cronies, & siblings of the major party in power to run for seats.

Second no prevention to allow the Interior Minister (Sanoh - another crook along with Chalerm & Suthep) & Thaksin's then wife to ensure that the assets scrutiny committee was stacked with enough compliant judges in judging his 'honest' mistake of not fully declaring his assets. In other words he never should have been allow to be PM (& 2,500+ lives may well have been spared in the fake 'war on drugs').

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by khunken

[sjaak327]

Wrong. There were serious flaws in the 1997 constitution. Two major ones:
No effort to make the Senate a real check/balance, rather just allow the wives, cronies, & siblings of the major party in power to run for seats.
Second no prevention to allow the Interior Minister (Sanoh - another crook along with Chalerm & Suthep) & Thaksin's then wife to ensure that the assets scrutiny committee was stacked with enough compliant judges in judging his 'honest' mistake of not fully declaring his assets. In other words he never should have been allow to be PM (& 2,500+ lives may well have been spared in the fake 'war on drugs').
 

Sorry but I prefer senators that have to actually gain a mandate over appointed senators. The 2006 constitution changed this to be half, the 2017 to all appointed, checks and balances executed by people who are not impartial and have no mandate. A major step back.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[The Deerhunter]

15 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

I was referring to his electoral popularity, as is in black and white in your quote, talk about desparation !

 

In fact, the reason why that play off is not possible is also on topic, the topic is the Junta abusing the legal system to get rid of their political enemies. Or do you still maintain that the trail against Yingluck was fair ? 

 

Desparate to paint the Thaksins in a bad light, even if laws are being broken right left and center, the very issue you seem to have with him, absolutely indefenseable position. 

My real opinion of Mr Thaksin Shinawatra,  just so you do not have to rely on your speculation:  F.Y.I.  (I have stated this exact point numerous times over several years in this forum.)

 "I consider Mr Thaksin as probably the closest to her desperately needed Lee Kwan Yew that Thailand has ever got since 1932.  He calculated brilliantly, played correctly and won, decisively!!!   Then he stupidly threw it all away when ego and greed got out of control.  I hope (but doubt, his ego being what it is) that he is sitting over there (wherever) saying:  "Damn! Damn! Damn!  I deserved to be P.M. for life and and was as good as there..... but I stupidly blew it!   Damn! Damn! Damn!"

[africasiaeuro]

At the time nobody could raise even a thought against the guy.

 

Took them a long time to come out clear with this one.

 

Another crushed Bonaparte going down in history, except he is not confined on an island.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

My real opinion of Mr Thaksin Shinawatra,  just so you do not have to rely on your speculation:  F.Y.I.  (I have stated this exact point numerous times over several years in this forum.)

 "I consider Mr Thaksin as probably the closest to her desperately needed Lee Kwan Yew that Thailand has ever got since 1932.  He calculated brilliantly, played correctly and won, decisively!!!   Then he stupidly threw it all away when ego and greed got out of control.  I hope (but doubt, his ego being what it is) that he is sitting over there (wherever) saying:  "Damn! Damn! Damn!  I deserved to be P.M. for life and and was as good as there..... but I stupidly blew it!   Damn! Damn! Damn!"

 

"...played correctly ..."

 

That's just your opinion, which you of course entitled to, lots of observers here at that time would certainly disagree.

 

[The Deerhunter]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

"...played correctly ..."

 

That's just your opinion, which you of course entitled to, lots of observers here at that time would certainly disagree.

 

Of course. I was speaking as the common people who voted for him would have seen it.  Most people could only see the good Thaksin in the early stages.  A certain percentage knew him and knew that he was ruthless and ambitious.  And we won't even go into detail about some of his known and probable ambitions.   He played correctly to win the election against a quite determined and certainly well- funded opposition.  If they had fully realized his great potential they probably would have played harder too. But he won and started off well by simply keeping his campaign promises which was simply unheard of in Thailand at the time. Then the financial crimes, drug war and trucking protestors in the south came out of the real man that the common people never believed existed.  And the rest is history. And now he can't even come home to grow old and die among his family.  "Sum num nah."   Silly man.  He had it all but it wasn't enough!!!!

Edited July 8, 2018 by The Deerhunter