Thaksin’s Homecoming Bid May Fall Through Without Help From Kingmaker

[MrMojoRisin]

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yingluck was not deposed in a coup, she as removed from office by the Constitutional Court before the coup.   

She was removed from office by the colluding constitutional court as part of the coup. You’re fooling no one but yourself.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

30 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Have you even read the article in the link you provided?

 

Everything I've stated is in that article. 

 

I got the 100 million wrong. It's been awhile since I've read that article in the Bangkok post.

 

So the land went for 2.3 billion Baht initially when it was sold by the previous owner. Then the value got reevaluated and brought down the price to 1.3 billion and Thaksin's wife bought it at "auction" for 772 million, nonetheless as the only bidder in the second round because to be eligible to bid on the land they had to pay a fee, or something along the lines of a fee, of 100 million Baht, which the two other bidders of the first round didn't have or didnt want to spend otherwise she wouldn't have been the only bidder. That's 600 million less than what the agency of the Bank of Thailand paid for it and Thaksin did sign a letter of consent to make the deal go through and since he was the defacto leader of the agency this was illegal and therefore he caught 2 years! It's all in the link you provided.

 

But I got it completely wrong! 

Indeed you did.

 

https://www.newmandala.org/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/

[MrMojoRisin]

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Don't think so.  Check your facts.

Are you suggesting Thammanat is not a powerbroker in control of a group of 20 MPs and maintains close ties with DPM Prawit?

 

https://thediplomat.com/2022/02/who-is-thammanat-prompao-the-man-shaking-up-thailands-ruling-coalition/

 

 

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Indeed you did.

 

https://www.newmandala.org/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/

???????????? nice try! 

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Indeed you did.

 

https://www.newmandala.org/a-response-to-vanina-sucharitkul/

???????????? nice try! 

[robblok]

13 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Wait, what… Thanathorn’s a good guy?

 

Then why has his party been disbanded?

 

Why was he charged under the computer crimes act?

 

Why was he kicked out of parliament?

 

How can you not see the problem here?

 

Bad guys using the legal system to destroy good guys in order to maintain the status quo - you agree with this as long as at least someone (even good guys) still get punished.

 

Baffling!

 

 

 

 

So no constructive answer and the fail for comparing him with Thaksin. I should have known.

[MrMojoRisin]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

So no constructive answer and the fail for comparing him with Thaksin. I should have known.

What do you think will happen to the next Thanathorn?

 

1. Party disbanded

2. Trumped up charges filed

3. Courts unjustly convict

4. Banned from politics

 

Sound familiar?

[MrMojoRisin]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

???????????? nice try! 

1-0

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

What do you think will happen to the next Thanathorn?

 

1. Party disbanded

2. Trumped up charges filed

3. Courts unjustly convict

4. Banned from politics

 

Sound familiar?

again Thanathorn is differen to bring him in this discussion is just stupid.

 

Thaksin was corrupt no question about it. So he deserves the punishment.

 

Others do too but it wont happen soon. Your reasoning is let all the corrupt bastards go until the judiciary changes. (Will take years if not decades and all the time they can do what they want). Not a good solution.

 

That is like saying lets not check for people who drink and drive as we can't get them all and some people are above the law. It still helps bring down at least a bit. Better then nothing.

 

Instead of dodging the real question what to do until the judiciary changes. Let them all free or what ? That is the core issue.

 

I dont really expect an answer as you bring in Thanathorn and that is foolish as it about a proven corrupt leader. Thanathorn is not corrupt. 

[metisdead]

An off topic post about Pol Pot and a reply has been removed.

[herfiehandbag]

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"The same happened to his sister Yingluck".

Nonsense, she was removed from office for abuse of power by the Constitutional Court before the coup.  She was not PM at the time of the coup.

However, perhaps it should be noted that at the time of the coup she and her party were standing, entirely legally and constitutionally in a general election which they were expected to win. The election was being impeded by a violent protest movement which had realised that electorally it could not win. The military, not prepared to do their duty and allow the election to proceed, staged a coup and seized power.

 

So whilst it may be technically correct to say @billd766is wrong, the effect of the coup was exactly that.

 

Whichever way you cut it, slice it or otherwise describe the events of the first two decades of this century, it is the case that both the Thaksin and Yingluck governments, and the intervening Thaksin "loyal" government, were removed by the military, very much against the expressed wishes of the electorate, and in circumstances which ignored the Constitution (s).

Edited December 8, 2022 by herfiehandbag

[MrMojoRisin]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

again Thanathorn is differen to bring him in this discussion is just stupid.

 

Thaksin was corrupt no question about it. So he deserves the punishment.

 

Others do too but it wont happen soon. Your reasoning is let all the corrupt bastards go until the judiciary changes. (Will take years if not decades and all the time they can do what they want). Not a good solution.

 

That is like saying lets not check for people who drink and drive as we can't get them all and some people are above the law. It still helps bring down at least a bit. Better then nothing.

 

Instead of dodging the real question what to do until the judiciary changes. Let them all free or what ? That is the core issue.

 

I dont really expect an answer as you bring in Thanathorn and that is foolish as it about a proven corrupt leader. Thanathorn is not corrupt. 

Thanathorn’s position is that Thaksin should face a new trial under a neutral judge

- why do you think that is?

- why do you disagree with Thanathorn?

[josephbloggs]

15 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

The mature response, is to identify the lesser of two evils, particularly by deciding which option is most likely to lead to the best long term outcome.

 

It really is as simple as choosing between democracy and dictatorship.

 

What impact did Thaksin “reign” have on you and how is it different now under an unelected reign?

What impact did it have on a me personally?  Well luckily I was not put on a drugs blacklist so I am still alive unlike my friend's father who was gunned down by police (no drugs involved at all). Also unlike Nong Fluke, and all the other murdered children and adults across the country - no trials, no evidence, just executed.

Thailand has corruption, it is what turns the wheels, always has and likely always will (just like the UK although - until recently - they were better at hiding it). What Thaksin did though was to take it to another level and he became so self obsessed and complacent he didn't even bother to hide it - he literally thought he was untouchable.

The Exim bank loan to Burma to buy his satellites. The hiding shares in his maid's name (and driver, and children, and relatives) to avoid tax. The Ratchada land sale to his wife at way below market value. Getting the BOI to grant tax breaks to Shin Corp while he was PM, getting the transport ministry to abolish the minimum air fare law when he was about to engage in a JV with Air Asia.  His appalling human rights violations (war on drugs, Tak Bai, Krue Se).

The man is a poisonous, self serving crook with only his own interests at heart. His corruption was so visible and open it was really quite astonishing how he thought he would get away with it - he really did believe he could walk on water.

Oh, the 30 baht health scheme was good though so I applaud him for that.

[MrMojoRisin]

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

What impact did it have on a me personally?  Well luckily I was not put on a drugs blacklist so I am still alive unlike my friend's father who was gunned down by police (no drugs involved at all). Also unlike Nong Fluke, and all the other murdered children and adults across the country - no trials, no evidence, just executed.

Thailand has corruption, it is what turns the wheels, always has and likely always will (just like the UK although - until recently - they were better at hiding it). What Thaksin did though was to take it to another level and he became so self obsessed and complacent he didn't even bother to hide it - he literally thought he was untouchable.

The Exim bank loan to Burma to buy his satellites. The hiding shares in his maid's name (and driver, and children, and relatives) to avoid tax. The Ratchada land sale to his wife at way below market value. Getting the BOI to grant tax breaks to Shin Corp while he was PM, getting the transport ministry to abolish the minimum air fare law when he was about to engage in a JV with Air Asia.  His appalling human rights violations (war on drugs, Tak Bai, Krue Se).

The man is a poisonous, self serving crook with only his own interests at heart. His corruption was so visible and open it was really quite astonishing how he thought he would get away with it - he really did believe he could walk on water.

Oh, the 30 baht health scheme was good though so I applaud him for that.

Methinks you lack a thorough understanding of the topic at hand.

 

Thaksin took it to another level you say?

When dictator Marshal Sarit Thanarat died in 1963, the Thai public discovered he had accumulated 2.8 billion baht (then US$112 million) during his life - equivalent to 30 percent of the national budget at the time

 

Thaksin is not the cause of Thailands woes and you are fooling none but the true believers with your fantasies.

[josephbloggs]

23 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Methinks you lack a thorough understanding of the topic at hand.

 

Thaksin took it to another level you say?

When dictator Marshal Sarit Thanarat died in 1963, the Thai public discovered he had accumulated 2.8 billion baht (then US$112 million) during his life - equivalent to 30 percent of the national budget at the time

 

Thaksin is not the cause of Thailands woes and you are fooling none but the true believers with your fantasies.

There you go again with your childish deflections and insults.

And did you not read the part where I said there always was and always will be corruption? And also the part about him being so brazen that he didn't care? As you posted yourself Sarit's wealth was only discovered after his death when there was an inheritance battle. Thaksin flaunted his wealth and waved his corruption around for everyone to see because, as I said before, he genuinely thought he was untouchable and that the rules did not apply to him. 

If you care to respond to any of my points feel free, but if you just want to insult and deflect then please move along.

[billd766]

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I lived in Thailand from 2003 until 2014 and therefore was in Thailand while the Thaksin episode went down and I didn't follow up on the situation after I've left. 

 

In regards to coups being illegal, that's obviously not how it works, regardless of what the law says. 

 

Nonetheless, he's a convicted criminal and should pay for it! 

So, according to you it is OK if coup makers are NOT punished but those politicians who were tried and convicted under those coup governments must be punished.

 

Have you always had double standards?

 

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other! 

It has everything to do with the fact that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, or at least they should be. However in Thailand, if you steal the country at gun point, you can tear up the constitution and write a new one in your favour. You can pack the now unelected senate with your family, cronies etc and simply ignore any law that you don't like.

 

When the law is equally applied to everybody then I agree that Thaksin should have a retrial under an independent judiciary, provided that all those generals down from the top serve full life sentences at the minimum for a military coup.

 

 

[billd766]

7 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Have you even read the article in the link you provided?

 

Everything I've stated is in that article. 

 

I got the 100 million wrong. It's been awhile since I've read that article in the Bangkok post.

 

So the land went for 2.3 billion Baht initially when it was sold by the previous owner. Then the value got reevaluated and brought down the price to 1.3 billion and Thaksin's wife bought it at "auction" for 772 million, nonetheless as the only bidder in the second round because to be eligible to bid on the land they had to pay a fee, or something along the lines of a fee, of 100 million Baht, which the two other bidders of the first round didn't have or didnt want to spend otherwise she wouldn't have been the only bidder. That's 600 million less than what the agency of the Bank of Thailand paid for it and Thaksin did sign a letter of consent to make the deal go through and since he was the defacto leader of the agency this was illegal and therefore he caught 2 years! It's all in the link you provided.

 

But I got it completely wrong! 

Of course you got it wrong as you have done all the way through the thread.

[MrMojoRisin]

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

There you go again with your childish deflections and insults.

And did you not read the part where I said there always was and always will be corruption? And also the part about him being so brazen that he didn't care? As you posted yourself Sarit's wealth was only discovered after his death when there was an inheritance battle. Thaksin flaunted his wealth and waved his corruption around for everyone to see because, as I said before, he genuinely thought he was untouchable and that the rules did not apply to him. 

If you care to respond to any of my points feel free, but if you just want to insult and deflect then please move along.

What points?

You've a chronic Thaksin obsession.

You're unable to see things as they are.

 

There is not a single type of corruption that is not committed on a far far grander scale by the anti democracy military elites than anything Thaksin and his kin were ever accused of, let alone actually guilty of.

 

The “Thaksin is the devil” nonsense is a mere sideshow meant to distract the mentally limited whilst the status quo is maintained - a free for all orgy of corruption by the military elites.

 

Elected governments in Thailand were all significantly less corrupt than all of the coup installed regimes - this is a simple and undeniable fact that all of the “but, but Thaksin” nonsense in the world will never convince any rational individual otherwise.

 

Your obsession with Thaksin is a guise, a fig leaf you hide behind because you haven’t the courage to simply state you are an authoritarian right winger who only believes in democracy if your side wins.

 

The double standards and hypocrisy one must stoop to in order to maintain the “Thaksin took it to another level” tomfoolery is hilarious.

 

Nobody is fooled

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

whilst it may be technically correct to say @billd766is wrong, the effect of the coup was exactly that.

 

Whichever way you cut it, slice it or otherwise describe the events of the first two decades of this century, it is the case that both the Thaksin and Yingluck governments, and the intervening Thaksin "loyal" government, were removed by the military

I was not "technically correct" pointing out that Yingluck was removed from office for abuse of power by the Constitutional Court. I was absolutely correct.

 

"...it is the case that both the Thaksin and Yingluck governments, and the intervening Thaksin "loyal" government, were removed by the military.."

No, that is not the case!    Yingluck was removed by the court, there was no "Yingluck government" at the time of the coup.  The acting PM at the time was her successor, Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan, it was his government that the coup removed.

[Liverpool Lou]

7 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Don't think so.  Check your facts.

Are you suggesting Thammanat is not a powerbroker in control of a group of 20 MPs and maintains close ties with DPM Prawit?

I'm stating, not suggesting, that he occupies no role, never mind a lead role, in the current government.

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yingluck was not deposed in a coup, she as removed from office by the Constitutional Court before the coup.   

She was removed from office by the colluding constitutional court as part of the coup. 

Thank you, yes, she was removed by the court, she was not removed by the military coup.

[Artisi]

On 12/6/2022 at 10:41 PM, scorecard said:

Why?

More news worthy  lick bait articles? 

[MrMojoRisin]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thank you, yes, she was removed by the court, she was not removed by the military coup.

Thank you for what?

The military and the courts are one and the same - there is no hair to be split here.

 

Yingluck was removed from the Prime Ministership as part of the coup conducted the the Thai establishment of which the courts were a willing co-conspirator.

 

And her supposed crime… transferring a public servant - how utterly ridiculous.

 

Yingluck was removed from power in a coup.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'm stating, not suggesting, that he occupies no role, never mind a lead role, in the current government.

Then you are also stating, unwittingly no doubt, that you know nothing of how politics works.

????????????

[MRToMRT]

On 12/6/2022 at 2:05 PM, billd766 said:

An allusion to an utterance of Jesus in John 8:7, viz. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”[1]

Phrase
let him who is without sin cast the first stone

Only those who are faultless have the right to pass judgment upon others (implying that no one is faultless and that, therefore, no one has such a right to pass judgment). 

A military coup might as you proffer be "illegal" but so is interfering in a government procurement process.

 

The bible text you quote does not mean every crime in the world should be forgiven because other crimes exist.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by MRToMRT

[MRToMRT]

If the "kingmaker" is even remotely thinking of Taksin's return then its because he knows Phua Thai/Thai rak Thak/etc are going to win by a majority in the next election. He will be trying to rescue something for himself rather than his party and cohorts be slaughtered in the election and he lose face.

[Artisi]

On 12/7/2022 at 11:06 AM, edwinchester said:

So you know all about events of 14 years ago but nothing about the current Govt? Just to enlighten you, in Thailand staging a coup is illegal.

In theory it is illegal but when  given the nod from the very top, who is going to push the legality? 

[Artisi]

6 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

If the "kingmaker" is even remotely thinking of Taksin's return then its because he knows Phua Thai/Thai rak Thak/etc are going to win by a majority in the next election. He will be trying to rescue something for himself rather than his party and cohorts be slaughtered in the election and he lose face.

And  to ensure he doesn't end up behind bars for being in  and helping in arranging and leading a coup. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Artisi

[Eric Loh]

Starting to make sense as to why Mingkwan Saengsuwan, an ally of Thaksin is joining PPRP. High profile reporting of Prawit personally welcoming him to the party and announced that he will be considered party candidate for next premiership. IMO Prawit will not take up the premiership if the rumour of horse trading between Pheu Thai and PPRP is true. He will always like the position of being the shadow power broker. 

[KannikaP]

On 12/6/2022 at 2:05 PM, billd766 said:

An example to what?

 

He was illegally overthrown by a military coup who then became the judge and jury of what they had charged him with.

 

The same happened to his sister Yingluck.

 

To quote the Christian bible 

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_him_who_is_without_sin_cast_the_first_stone

 

Etymology
An allusion to an utterance of Jesus in John 8:7, viz. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”[1]

Phrase
let him who is without sin cast the first stone

Only those who are faultless have the right to pass judgment upon others (implying that no one is faultless and that, therefore, no one has such a right to pass judgment). 

 

And any military coup is illegal.

 

 

Does it say anything in the Koran or the Buddhist book?