Thaksin Son Stonewalls Anti-corruption Examiners

[sriracha john]

It is a shame the thousands put to death by the previous regime did not have the recourse to the justice system that even a military junta afford those they deposed. Then again nobody seems to care about a bunch of offed poor people.

Sorry this just won't do.The illegal killings were certainly a crime which needs to be dealt with - though it probably won't be-, and Thaksin must take a prime responsibility for them.However the victims were not just a bunch of poor people.The majority were drug dealing scumbags who by any definition belonged behind bars.What is more most Thais of all social backgrounds supported the campaign given the huge cost in human misery the drug trade has brought to many communities.

None of the above suggests the killings were acceptable, and there were many "innocent" victims, local scores being settled etc.But unless the crime -for that is what it was -is put in context, comments like "a bunch of offed poor people" don't add any value to the discussion.

Without trials, every one of the 2,600-plus murdered victims were "innocent" and none of them were "drug dealing scumbags." That's what non-judicial executions mean.

"A bunch of offed people" is, indeed, an accurate description, be they poor, middle-income, or upper income.

[sriracha john]

The Auditor-General said it best when she described the level of Thaksin's corruption as "unprecedented" in Thailand's history.

The baht numbers bantered about in his cases certainly are a testimony to that.

[younghusband]

It is a shame the thousands put to death by the previous regime did not have the recourse to the justice system that even a military junta afford those they deposed. Then again nobody seems to care about a bunch of offed poor people.

Sorry this just won't do.The illegal killings were certainly a crime which needs to be dealt with - though it probably won't be-, and Thaksin must take a prime responsibility for them.However the victims were not just a bunch of poor people.The majority were drug dealing scumbags who by any definition belonged behind bars.What is more most Thais of all social backgrounds supported the campaign given the huge cost in human misery the drug trade has brought to many communities.

None of the above suggests the killings were acceptable, and there were many "innocent" victims, local scores being settled etc.But unless the crime -for that is what it was -is put in context, comments like "a bunch of offed poor people" don't add any value to the discussion.

Without trials, every one of the 2,600-plus murdered victims were "innocent" and none of them were "drug dealing scumbags." That's what non-judicial executions mean.

"A bunch of offed people" is, indeed, an accurate description, be they poor, middle-income, or upper income.

I don't disagree with you that these were deplorable non-judicial executions, and that legally there should be a presumption of innocence.

But equally, though I regret my use of the expression "scumbags", I'm afraid there's no doubt that most were deeply involved in the murderous drug trade.I'm impressed you correctly give these people the benefit of the doubt though, not a position you take on Thaksin who as far as I know has yet to be tried for any offence.

Incidentally as a courteous suggestion you might consider, as an alternative to posting pictures of half dressed starlets and "amusing pictures" doing a little research on who exactly was supportive on the Thai "war on drugs".I think you will find that most Thais (in my opinion!) felt drastic measures were needed to end the dreadful misery that narcotics have brought to many communities.

[younghusband]

The Auditor-General said it best when she described the level of Thaksin's corruption as "unprecedented" in Thailand's history.

The baht numbers bantered about in his cases certainly are a testimony to that.

In Mandy Rice-Davies' immortal words, she would say that wouldn't she.

Look I'm not denying there was an unacceptable level of corruption under Thaksin, simply that it wasn't out of scale with past administrations.The junta and its government have to claim that the level was unprecedented otherwise the whole raison d'etre for the coup begins to unravel.I suggest we can agree there was a major problem and let historians work out the pecking order (although in my opinion there is sufficient evidence that Thaksin's administration was very far from being the worst offender.)

[sriracha john]

It is a shame the thousands put to death by the previous regime did not have the recourse to the justice system that even a military junta afford those they deposed. Then again nobody seems to care about a bunch of offed poor people.

Sorry this just won't do.The illegal killings were certainly a crime which needs to be dealt with - though it probably won't be-, and Thaksin must take a prime responsibility for them.However the victims were not just a bunch of poor people.The majority were drug dealing scumbags who by any definition belonged behind bars.What is more most Thais of all social backgrounds supported the campaign given the huge cost in human misery the drug trade has brought to many communities.

None of the above suggests the killings were acceptable, and there were many "innocent" victims, local scores being settled etc.But unless the crime -for that is what it was -is put in context, comments like "a bunch of offed poor people" don't add any value to the discussion.

Without trials, every one of the 2,600-plus murdered victims were "innocent" and none of them were "drug dealing scumbags." That's what non-judicial executions mean.

"A bunch of offed people" is, indeed, an accurate description, be they poor, middle-income, or upper income.

I don't disagree with you that these were deplorable non-judicial executions, and that legally there should be a presumption of innocence.

But equally, though I regret my use of the expression "scumbags", I'm afraid there's no doubt that most were deeply involved in the murderous drug trade.

We'll never know if they were involved in the drug trade, deeply or otherwise. They're dead.... at Thaksin's direction.

[sriracha john]

The Auditor-General said it best when she described the level of Thaksin's corruption as "unprecedented" in Thailand's history.

The baht numbers bantered about in his cases certainly are a testimony to that.

In Mandy Rice-Davies' immortal words, she would say that wouldn't she.

Look I'm not denying there was an unacceptable level of corruption under Thaksin, simply that it wasn't out of scale with past administrations.The junta and its government have to claim that the level was unprecedented otherwise the whole raison d'etre for the coup begins to unravel.I suggest we can agree there was a major problem and let historians work out the pecking order (although in my opinion there is sufficient evidence that Thaksin's administration was very far from being the worst offender.)

What administration involved billions and billions of the order Thaksin stands accused..... none of them, hence the appropo use of "unprecedented."

[Siripon]

Doesn't 'stonewall' suggest you know what the investigators want but you refuse to cooperate.

But what does a boy who was forced to drop out of Thammasart, then only passed at Ramkhamhaeng when he had a piece of paper in his pocket for a multiple choice exam, know about Thaksin's shifty dealings?

And yet his father had the brazen gall to say to reporters last year when quizzed him about the ongoing Temmasek deal,' Ask my children, I know nothing'.

A man who will willingly abuse his children this way is indeed a sad example.

[sriracha john]

Indeed, child abuse is just another charge that Thaksin should face.

[chownah]

We'll never know if they were involved in the drug trade, deeply or otherwise. They're dead.... at Thaksin's direction.

Accusations without supporting evidence....there is no evidence that Thaksin directed the killings...and there is no evidence that he discouraged them.....

and this is totally off topic

Edited July 19, 2007 by chownah

[sriracha john]

Phantongtae Shinawatra, son of ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, arrives at the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) office in Bangkok, Thailand.

Associated Press

====================================

A prime example of how the drug war killings failed to stop the abusers from their supply of drugs.

[Siripon]

We'll never know if they were involved in the drug trade, deeply or otherwise. They're dead.... at Thaksin's direction.

Accusations without supporting evidence....there is no evidence that Thaksin directed the killings...and there is no evidence that he discouraged them.....

and this is totally off topic

Chownah, I suggest you read some of his speeches to the police at the time. Plenty of compelling evidence that he gave the green light and condoned extra judicial killings.

No doubt some of the mods or Plus could direct you to his words at the time.

[Plus]

I'm not an archive specialist, "A traveller" and Slimdog usually have all the quotes at hand, but the main reason I'm not going to search for Thaksin words is that if Chownah haven't seen them before he should not comment on the subject at all. I believe he has actually seen them but is just wasting our time asking to prove this and that.

In Mandy Rice-Davies' immortal words, she would say that wouldn't she.

Look I'm not denying there was an unacceptable level of corruption under Thaksin, simply that it wasn't out of scale with past administrations.The junta and its government have to claim that the level was unprecedented otherwise the whole raison d'etre for the coup begins to unravel.

Jaruwan's quote and accusations of corruption predate the coup by several years. No other Thai leader faced such mass protests against corruption as Thaksin, well before the coup. There are plenty of Thais, in fact tens of millions of Thais, who have seen it all first hand and who could not accept it. For them it pales in comparison with whatever Democrats or Chavalit, or Chatichai stole before Thaksin.

If Younghusband also wants "scientific" evidence, it can be found in this very forum. Papers by Baker and Posuk were quoted and given links to at least once. Then there was a paper on corruption under Democrats - the numbers they mentioned there were ridiculous. They counted in millions while Thaksin stole billions. I also remember asking someone here if they understood the difference between a million and a billion. You have to have a concept of scale before you can say that stealing a billion is nothing special.

Same with junta's agenda - they stated very clearly what they want - referendum and elections by the end of the year. Opinion polls show 7-1 support for this plan. I haven't seen any political analyst that would question this support. Why should we waste time proving it again and again for Younghusband's satisfation?

I, personally, don't want to waste time on these matters just like I wouldn't waste time on arguing with people who think that global warming is Al Gore's conspiracy or that the world is ruled by little green aliens.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Plus

[ParrotHead]

Why would they (Thaksins) cooperate with a military appointed commission when it was the military who committed the crime that installed the commission in the first place? If the Thaksins have an ounce of decency (debatable), they will wait until after an election to participate in any investigations or legal proceedings. An illegal mad dictator does not constitute a legitimate government, even if his first name is General.

Even so, the government is still the law of the land. Does this mean that we ALL can ignore their rule? Or just Thaksin? Seems a bit unfair that I still have to pay my taxes and obey the law while Thaksin doesn't. Well I guess Thai Law doesn't apply to him, but does to me, no matter how "illegal" the rulers are. Something just does not seem right...

[younghusband]

I'm not an archive specialist, "A traveller" and Slimdog usually have all the quotes at hand, but the main reason I'm not going to search for Thaksin words is that if Chownah haven't seen them before he should not comment on the subject at all. I believe he has actually seen them but is just wasting our time asking to prove this and that.

In Mandy Rice-Davies' immortal words, she would say that wouldn't she.

Look I'm not denying there was an unacceptable level of corruption under Thaksin, simply that it wasn't out of scale with past administrations.The junta and its government have to claim that the level was unprecedented otherwise the whole raison d'etre for the coup begins to unravel.

Jaruwan's quote and accusations of corruption predate the coup by several years. No other Thai leader faced such mass protests against corruption as Thaksin, well before the coup. There are plenty of Thais, in fact tens of millions of Thais, who have seen it all first hand and who could not accept it. For them it pales in comparison with whatever Democrats or Chavalit, or Chatichai stole before Thaksin.

If Younghusband also wants "scientific" evidence, it can be found in this very forum. Papers by Baker and Posuk were quoted and given links to at least once. Then there was a paper on corruption under Democrats - the numbers they mentioned there were ridiculous. They counted in millions while Thaksin stole billions. I also remember asking someone here if they understood the difference between a million and a billion. You have to have a concept of scale before you can say that stealing a billion is nothing special.

Same with junta's agenda - they stated very clearly what they want - referendum and elections by the end of the year. Opinion polls show 7-1 support for this plan. I haven't seen any political analyst that would question this support. Why should we waste time proving it again and again for Younghusband's satisfation?

I, personally, don't want to waste time on these matters just like I wouldn't waste time on arguing with people who think that global warming is Al Gore's conspiracy or that the world is ruled by little green aliens.

Let's put the question of comparitive corruption on one side.I have already agreed that the level was uncompletely unacceptable under Thaksin.

The junta's agenda is different.You state that the objective is referendum and elections by the end of this year.While this is true it is only part of the story, and confuses form with substance.When i think of the junta's agenda, I am referring to the motivation which led to the coup and the kind of government they envisage after the elections.

[chownah]

We'll never know if they were involved in the drug trade, deeply or otherwise. They're dead.... at Thaksin's direction.

Accusations without supporting evidence....there is no evidence that Thaksin directed the killings...and there is no evidence that he discouraged them.....

and this is totally off topic

Chownah, I suggest you read some of his speeches to the police at the time. Plenty of compelling evidence that he gave the green light and condoned extra judicial killings.

No doubt some of the mods or Plus could direct you to his words at the time.

I've read them and see no evidence that he directed the killings....I also see no evidence that he discouraged them either.

[younghusband]

We'll never know if they were involved in the drug trade, deeply or otherwise. They're dead.... at Thaksin's direction.

Accusations without supporting evidence....there is no evidence that Thaksin directed the killings...and there is no evidence that he discouraged them.....

and this is totally off topic

Chownah, I suggest you read some of his speeches to the police at the time. Plenty of compelling evidence that he gave the green light and condoned extra judicial killings.

No doubt some of the mods or Plus could direct you to his words at the time.

Siripon,

If you are looking at evidence as to what people and at what level condoned the extra judicial killings you are treading on very very thin ice.

[Plus]

Let's put the question of comparitive corruption on one side.I have already agreed that the level was uncompletely unacceptable under Thaksin.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right.

The junta's agenda is different.You state that the objective is referendum and elections by the end of this year.While this is true it is only part of the story, and confuses form with substance.When i think of the junta's agenda, I am referring to the motivation which led to the coup and the kind of government they envisage after the elections.

Junta's publicly declared agenda is what people want to see through. There are concerns about military meddling with post-junta government but they will be addressed in due time, it's not the priority now. And people are watching - look at society's reaction to ISOC bills, it might be delayed until after the elections.

[John K]

[younghusband]

Let's put the question of comparitive corruption on one side.I have already agreed that the level was uncompletely unacceptable under Thaksin.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right.

The junta's agenda is different.You state that the objective is referendum and elections by the end of this year.While this is true it is only part of the story, and confuses form with substance.When i think of the junta's agenda, I am referring to the motivation which led to the coup and the kind of government they envisage after the elections.

Junta's publicly declared agenda is what people want to see through. There are concerns about military meddling with post-junta government but they will be addressed in due time, it's not the priority now. And people are watching - look at society's reaction to ISOC bills, it might be delayed until after the elections.

Sorry for pre-caffeine fix typo.

As to junta agenda, I take your point but its a bit like riding a tiger.

[jackspratt]

However the victims were not just a bunch of poor people.The majority were drug dealing scumbags who by any definition belonged behind bars.

And the others (the minority) - collateral damage?

[WISteve]

As for sonny boy's refusal to answer questions:

Doesn't anyone remember that papa taught everyone that there are "good questions" and there are "bad questions"?

Next question please.

~Wisteve

[Bill97]

IF it was a clean deal, most people would choose to go the committee to clear it up and avoid the time and expense of doing it in court.

[chownah]

I really don't see why everyone is so fascinated with the sons unwillingness to testify. Rich people have lawyers who get consulted in matters like this and any lawyer will tell you that if talking to authorities can not benefit you in any way then if the law allows the best thing to do is to say nothing...so that's what the lawyer advised and thats what he did. Any smart person in the same situation would do the same.......if there is nothing to gain by testifying then say nothing if given the option....simple common sense.

[hammered]

I really don't see why everyone is so fascinated with the sons unwillingness to testify. Rich people have lawyers who get consulted in matters like this and any lawyer will tell you that if talking to authorities can not benefit you in any way then if the law allows the best thing to do is to say nothing...so that's what the lawyer advised and thats what he did. Any smart person in the same situation would do the same.......if there is nothing to gain by testifying then say nothing if given the option....simple common sense.

While agreeing with what you have written I do find the reference to smart people quite funny in the case of a guy who passed his university exams in a somewhat questionable manner

[UnknownPoster]

"Thaksin Son Stonewalls Anti-corruption Examiners"

or...

Thaksins son pays attention to Lawyers advice.

Why should he talk to a Junta?

Everybody knows the Thai Military is 10x more corrupt than any politician.

[ilyushin]

Thaksin son stonewalls anti-corruption examiners

BANGKOK: -- Appearing only to state that he would not testify, Panthongtae Shinawatra, son of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, 'stonewalled' Wednesday instead of testifying to Thailand's Assets Examination Committee (AEC) probing missing profits from the Shin Corp share sale to Singapore's Temasek Holdings in early 2006.

The son of the former prime minister submitted a letter notifying the AEC that he would not testify before the panel, but only testify before the court.

Accompanied by his lawyers, Mr. Panthongtae declined to give comments to reporters before entering to the Office of the Auditor-General.

No supporters of the deposed premier turned up to give his moral support as in the past.

The testimony has earlier been scheduled on July 4 but later postponed due to Mr. Panthongtae's health problem.

AEC had earlier concluded that Mr. Panthongtae and his sister Ms. Pinthongta were liable for tax on a transaction last year in which the two bought 329.2 million Shin Corp shares from Ample Rich for one baht each and sold them the next day to Singapore's Temasek Holdings for Bt49.25 each.

Ample Rich is a holding company set up by Mr. Thaksin in the British Virgin Islands.

The AEC said the company was established as part of a scheme to avoid paying taxes on the sale. It was only discovered after the sale that both Thaksin children were owners of the firm.

Ms. Pinthongta earlier said she was unable to travel to Thailand and testify because she had to sit for a university examination in England. The panel had decided to postpone its hearing to August 24.

--TNA 2007-07-18

The Shinawatra family has a lot health and wealth ( frozen assets) problems. Might have a bad cold with all the freezing. Too bad ( yeah) they didn't move their assets out long before, but this could all be staged for sympathy. Not one Thaksin supporter shows ( unlike in the past) also tells me just how tight the bamboo telegraph ( network) really is. The return of Thaksin? What will Gen. Sonti do? He retires soon. The elections and return of Doc Tox is highly possible. Thinking out loud.

[triplegee]

"Thaksin Son Stonewalls Anti-corruption Examiners"

or...

Thaksins son pays attention to Lawyers advice.

Why should he talk to a Junta?

Everybody knows the Thai Military is 10x more corrupt than any politician.

Makes sense to me...

Finally a topic on TV that has some substance.

I can't understand all the posters that have taken the high & mighty stance. Thaksin was no worse than his predecessors nor was he any worse than politicians the world over. We've all seen it in our own countries.

Then someone doesn't like it when he's successful so let's kick him out. And then we'll bring all these charges against him and his family. Put yourself in the Thaksin family shoes - if you can - what would you do?? Tell them to f*(k off in whatever way you can. I would.

[Mid]

Thaksin was no worse than his predecessors nor was he any worse than politicians the world over. We've all seen it in our own countries.

Extrajudicial Killings

speak for yourself .......................................

[triplegee]

speak for yourself .......................................

Der... isn't that what forums are for???

I can show you plenty of conspiracy theories based in any country you want to name. What's your point?

Edited July 21, 2007 by triplegee

[Mid]

duh ,

the point is the use of the royal we ...........................