Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament

[sriracha john]

Why don't they just stop their illegal protest so no more bomb from whatever side?

The red won't bomb the yellow is what I believe. If they wanted, they would just all go there and "yiap" (step) on all the PAD. Case closed. But they don't do that.

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

"Over the past few years?" I thought the red was formed recently around late Setp / early Oct.

yes over the past few years .... The folks wearing red and opposing PAD have been at it for ages ... DAAD, UDD, Saturday People etc ....

But surely you know all this as you are such a well informed person! Like you knew Thaksin was a CONVICTEd criminal

fast edit --- it was reds that attacked the PAD at Gov't house, leaving one of them dead on Sept 2nd

*sigh*.... ya take one off ignore like AlKing and end up right back putting someone else on it in his place, eh jd?

[sriracha john]

The red was adopted by Thaksin supporters right after the coup, that makes it two years old.

Thaksin is a convicted criminal, it's as simple as that, but I don't think that's the point Koo wants to argue about. He wants Thaksin to be forgiven for years of looting the country just because Koo loves him.

just so you know, that should read as "She"....

[sriracha john]

Huh? ... his wife bought property illegally ... he signed off on it ... it was corruption.

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

The info I got is that she bought the property with the correct procedure. Only that the law does not allow a government staff (including PM) to sign for his wife to buy. He signed because he is her husband.

That's right, she wasn't convicted in that case but she WAS convicted with an 3 years sentence in an other case before!

So final: both of them are convicted criminals, Period.

Cheers.

I'd just add...

So final: both of them are convicted criminal fugitives, Period.

Edited November 6, 2008 by sriracha john

[Koo82]

The red was adopted by Thaksin supporters right after the coup, that makes it two years old.

Thaksin is a convicted criminal, it's as simple as that, but I don't think that's the point Koo wants to argue about. He wants Thaksin to be forgiven for years of looting the country just because Koo loves him.

It doesn't work that way, Koo. You love cannot undo all the evil things he has done to the country. For now he has been convicted in one case only, that makes it easy for us to argue, but the trail of his ripping off the country doesn't end there. He was the thief of the highest order, whether you love him or hate him is immaterial.

What did you mean "evil things" he has done to Thailand? The poor pay 30 Baht health care for any treatment. The poor have fund to start small business (buying selling etc). The Suvarnabhumi became real after tens of years in paper. Drug was reduced to almost 0. Some to say. Since Khun Samak's time, the poor can have free water, free electricity, free bus, free train.

No one did that much for Thailand like him / his party.

The man who said Khun Thaksin was the best, after not getting things from him, turned his back and said he's the worst.

What are the reasons some of you minority hate Khun Thaksin that much? Compares with what he has done for Thailand, what he earned for his own family was too little.

Many countries treasure his brain.

[Koo82]

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

I haven't seen the reds do anything to the yellows. So far they only have 2 meetings to show they are supporting the current government.

[jdinasia]

jdinasia,

How can it be a few years? The PAD had activities for quite sometimes, but they officially attacked the Government House and NBT since late Aug / early Sept this year.

Only after they are untouched for a month, the red was formed.

Did you live somewhere with no television, no radio, and no conversations other than what some paid kanman working for TRT told you for the past few years?

Even Thai papers had reports on the saturday people ..

People --- you know I hate Wiki .... b and the article on the UDD is the worst sort of wiki .... but I just can't be bothered to educate Koo so much as to do a bucketload of searching through papers and TV ... so here goes the wiki

The National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). formerly Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) is the anti-People's Alliance for Democracy alliance in Thailand. (นปช. 'Nor Por Chor' in Thai). Its members are red-clad during protests.

This alliance was established in 2006 to support the former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and to oppose the military junta. Thaksin was deposed by the military coup on September 19, 2006. During the military regime in 2006-2007, the UDD actively organized rallies against the ruling military junta. The UDD stopped the rallies when the Thaksin-affiliated parties, led by Samak Sundaravej, won the December 23, 2007 general elections, and resumed their rallies against the PAD rallies in May 2008.

The leaders of the UDD are members of the People's Power Party, academics and social activists. Some members are in the government. UDD leaders are also the TV-NBT daily program critics. The UDD is against military involvement in politics. The UDD is supported by academics and social activists, largely Marxist activists and former members of the Communist Party of Thailand, such as Jai Eungpakorn, Somsak Jiamtheerasakul, Charan Ditthapichai and Dr.Weng Tohjiirakarn. These intellectuals describe the UDD as being the stronghold for the People's Power Party. The UDD attracts supporters and sympathizers of Thaksin Shinawatra. The UDD's activities are supported by the PPP.

The UDD is financially supported by the Thaksin-affiliated parties. In the clash between the PAD and the UDD on Sep 2, 2008 some MPs of the Thaksin-affiliated parties were participants.

again 1000 pardons for quoting Wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unit...st_Dictatorship

[jdinasia]

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

I haven't seen the reds do anything to the yellows. So far they only have 2 meetings to show they are supporting the current government.

Since you can't be bothered to know anything of your own country or what happens here ....... I am done with you.

[Xangsamhua]

The red was adopted by Thaksin supporters right after the coup, that makes it two years old.

Thaksin is a convicted criminal, it's as simple as that, but I don't think that's the point Koo wants to argue about. He wants Thaksin to be forgiven for years of looting the country just because Koo loves him.

It doesn't work that way, Koo. You love cannot undo all the evil things he has done to the country. For now he has been convicted in one case only, that makes it easy for us to argue, but the trail of his ripping off the country doesn't end there. He was the thief of the highest order, whether you love him or hate him is immaterial.

What did you mean "evil things" he has done to Thailand? The poor pay 30 Baht health care for any treatment. The poor have fund to start small business (buying selling etc). The Suvarnabhumi became real after tens of years in paper. Drug was reduced to almost 0. Some to say. Since Khun Samak's time, the poor can have free water, free electricity, free bus, free train.

No one did that much for Thailand like him / his party.

The man who said Khun Thaksin was the best, after not getting things from him, turned his back and said he's the worst.

What are the reasons some of you minority hate Khun Thaksin that much? Compares with what he has done for Thailand, what he earned for his own family was too little.

Many countries treasure his brain.

Koo, I don't think anyone's going to change your mind, but when we start to lionize someone, whether it be a political figure, a religious leader, a celebrity or whatever, we become credulous. It's good to leave a little space for skepticism.

Thaksin had a certain style, a can-do image and, in later years a carefully developed persona as a man of the people, but he was a paternalist and an opportunist; he had no interest in people exercising individual rights and freedoms. He may well have wished to improve the lot of the poor, but he believed they had to be ruled well, not liberated. He used his money and influence to buy up key positions in the civil service, the judiciary and the military and he rewarded those in the business sector who fell in with his plans. He used his position in the state structure to aggrandize and enrich his own family. His vision for Thailand was a one-party state controlled by himself and his kinship network and his cronies. He was turning Thailand into a corporation run by businessman (including himself) who were also running their own businesses. His personal ethics were dominated by the drive to do a good deal. As someone on another thread said, he could no more resist the Temasek deal than a dog could walk past a sausage on the sidewalk.

Sondhi Limthongkul in 2005 was not the first to lift the lid on Thaksin. Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit had done a pretty good job of it in their 2004 book "Thaksin: The Business of Politics in Thailand". I recommend it to you.

[Plus]

What did you mean "evil things" he has done to Thailand?

The list is very long, I don't know where to start.

Notable achievement was killing several thousand innocent people and convincing everyone that it's ok, effectively dehumanising the population. Even you dislplay absolutely no compassion and mercy to the victims, or realise that mass murder is evil, not matter what the upside is (drug reduction, in this case).

He also instituted corruption as a way of live, stealing was allowed and even encouraged as long as enough crumbs were thrown back at people. The country has lost all sense of justice. Again, even you proclaim that politicians should be free to enrich themselves as long as you can profit form it, too.

That's an advanced stage of moral decay for which the society will duly suffer for many years to come.

Corruption is not a victimless crime.

>>>

The list of all good things he has done for the country is not important - he will get his rewards for it.

But he has to accept punishment for bad things, too. That's how it works - people get punished for their crimes. Maybe not always in Thailand (like that dr Wisut who clubbed his wife to death but was let free because he was such a good man), but generally good and bad deeds don't cancel each other. Hard work will bring you success, and crimes will bring you punishment.

>>>

Sorry for referring to you as "she", I knew that you were a female (don't ask me how), just a mistype, "he" is my default pronoun for a third person.

[grandpops]

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

I haven't seen the reds do anything to the yellows. So far they only have 2 meetings to show they are supporting the current government.

Since you can't be bothered to know anything of your own country or what happens here ....... I am done with you.

Still wailing, sneering and insulting your way to your 9,000th post. Still not changed a single mind nor condescended to accept that opinions other than your own exist. Your family must be pleased as punch to be living under your despotic rule

I notice you didn't respond to Koo's post about 30baht health care, the loans, IMF fund, finishing the airport etc. Must be so inconvenient that the one you most detest, brought about more social improvements than the entire gamut of PAD/(anti-Democrats/Army friends you so love to support.

Leave the sneering a minute and lets have a list of Achievements of PAD. Thats achievments, things accomplished. Things that Thailand benefitted from. I'll start you off;

1. blocked phuket airport and turned away 20,000 people and caused untold misery and hardship to a tourist island already suffereing in low season. Anyone in Phuket will attest to an increase in crime has since followed.

2. scared thousands of Asian tourists into cancelling their holidays to thailand for the coming high season.

sorry, not being to helpful am I. I'll leave it to you as you know best. And sorry, I don;t have video footage of them cancelling!

Glad you are done with us, perhaps we can continue with these debates without your petulant outbursts.

You have spent far too much time on posting to have possibly learnt anything much about this country.

Bye, and don't let the door catch the back of your big ed on the way out!

Edited November 6, 2008 by grandpops

[gless]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

Edited November 6, 2008 by gless

[jdinasia]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

[slimdog]

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

Actually this was the 4th attempt, the first was during the Chavalit Goverment's term, the second during Chuan's Goverment term, an electronic auction was attempted during mid 2004 but no one would identify themselves and for the final sealed bid auction a deposit of 100 million baht was requested to ensure that only serious bidders applied.

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

Whilst the FIDF is a separate juristic body, it is still under the BOT and is governed by the Bank of Thailand Act. The fact is, that whilst it has independance it is still classified as a State Enterprise, and as such has to report to the cabinet (Bank Of Thailand Act BE 2485 Section 29 quinque)

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

The second bidder was actually Land & House Public Co Ltd

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

I think it was delighted to have finally got rid of this so called asset after so many tries.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

True

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

Actually the court decided his wife was involved in a transaction with a state Enterprise over which he had some supervision and the power of inspection, as there was a signed copy of his Identity card he could could not state that he was unaware of the transaction,in which case Section122 would have absolved him of the charge. Section 100 of the NCCC Act states that any transaction carried out by a spouse will be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

Whilst Thaksin didn't have any control, supervision, Inspection or legal authority over the particular department which is responsible for the liquidation of assets, he did have the power of Inspection (Oversight) of the FIDF as a whole, as 5 out of the 9 judges ruled.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

He could have got up to 3 Years..

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

The criminal charges filed against both Thaksin and his wife, regarding the abuse of authority and using Ill-gotten gains for the transaction were all dismissed, therefore it was deemed that her part of the transaction was legal, and as the court deemed that the monies were legally aquired, she was allowed to keep the property.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

There are other cases pending, and a few still under review, some are of a similar nature, e.g more a legal interpretation than a case of outright corruption, others such as the EXIM bank loan do require that a full legal scrutiny be carried out.

As for the Ratchada Land Scandal, the discission was legally correct with the information made available to the court, at a different time with a different person maybe they would have given the individual the benefit of the doubt or just imposed the maximum fine of 60,000 baht.

The Irony of the case is of course that the land was aquired through a sell of assets from what has got to be the most corrupt financial Institution Thailand has ever had the misfortune to have (Erawan Trust), which has caused more Prime Ministers (5 if memory serves me right, none of them Thaksin..) to have a conflict of interest, in bailing the "Institution" out (Total cost of approx 1 Billion US$ over 25 years) just because of who the owner was.

Edited November 6, 2008 by slimdog

[catmac]

Why don't they just stop their illegal protest so no more bomb from whatever side?

The red won't bomb the yellow is what I believe. If they wanted, they would just all go there and "yiap" (step) on all the PAD. Case closed. But they don't do that.

Ummmmm what?

the occupation of Government House may be illegal, the protests are not ...

Why would they stop protesting when there is still a government in place that is trying anything it can do to bring back a convicted criminal?

Very good. May I please ask you to provide me brief true information that he's the criminal? I'm a bit lost here.

Thank you.

LOL .. he's been CONVICTED in a court of law! (His wife has too!)

stop hounding the man.

Huh? ... his wife bought property illegally ... he signed off on it ... it was corruption.

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

soundman --- that edit makes it look like I made a statement about the courts ... it was mc2

If "his wife bought property illegally" as you claim, why did the same court that convicted Thaksin find her not gilty?

But of course, you are so much more knowledgable than that court, so you now overturn their verdict. The extent to which the personal hatred of the Thaksin family clouds the judgment of you PADisters makes the mind boggle.

And what do you mean by "he signed off on it"? As far as I know, he simply signed consent as her husband, not in the sense of the PM signing into law a government order, as the President of the US "signs off" a bill passed by Congress to enact it as law.

The whole saga sounds like an enormous outpouring of sour grapes from the old guard elite, who find that their snouts aren't getting into the trough!

Edited November 7, 2008 by catmac

[sriracha john]

PPP MP rejected by Thai Airways to board her flight

People Power Party's Member of Parliament *and former Thai Rak Thai Party's Member of Parliament* Farida Sulaiman prepared to write a complaint letter to Thai Airways International Public Company Limited after she has been rejected from boarding.

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

"As a Thai citizen, she felt quite upset" = "If I was farang, it'd be normal to be mistreated on THAI"

People Power Party MP Farida Sulaiman

People Power Party MP Chaiya Proma

People Power Party MP Chompu Jantatong

THAI questions anti-PPP pilot

Thai Airways International (THAI) has set up a committee to investigate one of its pilots after he refused to allow three MPs from the People Power party (PPP) to board his aircraft yesterday. THAI vice-president Norahuch Ployai said captain Jakri Pongsiri had already been suspended until the outcome of the disciplinary investigation, which is expected to be completed next week. He said THAI had a policy of being politics-free and ensuring fair service. "Of course his action affects our image in the eyes of the public," Flight Officer Norahuch said. He described the incident as "unusual." The investigation must be carried out carefully because captains are important people in the company who usually have sound judgement and solid working experience, he said. THAI president Apinan Sumanaseni said if found to be in the wrong, the pilot would be punished either by being temporarily or permanently demoted to co-pilot. The three PPP MPs were Farida Sulaiman, who was scheduled to fly to Khon Kaen from Don Mueang airport on flight TG 1040 at 6.15am, and Chaiya Proma and Chompu Jantatong, who had booked the same flight, TG 1002, from the same airport to Udon Thani at 9.25am. Both flights were piloted by Mr Jakri. The government and police are under heavy criticism after the decision to disperse the PAD rally in front of parliament ended in tragedy with many PAD supporters and police severely injured. Chaiya, who is Deputy Chairman of the House Committee on Transport, said his panel would ask responsible agencies to clarify Mr Jakri's action. Under international practices, a pilot can decide not to allow drunken passengers or those carrying weapons to get on a plane for safety reasons. "But I'm not a criminal," Chaiya said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/091008_News/09Oct2008_news16.php

welcome back, Captain...

THAI captain reinstated

Thai Airways International's captain Chakri Chongsiri has been reinstated as a pilot, after the suspension following his refusal to let three MP members of the People Power Party from boarding flights.

THAI President Apinan Sumanaseni said Thursday that the pilot was cleared from the allegation, as the investigation team resolved that he did not breach the protocol. Chakri has resumed his work since early November.

According to Apinan, Chakri submitted a written letter, vowing not to repeat the action.

- The Nation / 2008-11-07

[hammered]

Koo in all fairness we have to point out that the reds have launched a fair number of attacks on the PAD and the parliamentary opposition over the past few years including hitting an ex-PM with a chair. It would be very niaive to believe that the reds are non-violent. Both sides are emminently capable of employing violence and have proven it.

I haven't seen the reds do anything to the yellows. So far they only have 2 meetings to show they are supporting the current government.

The reds are nothing new. They are a collection of groups that include the UDD and a number of provincially labelled groups and they have a record of violence as I mentioned before. They date back to at least 2006 and I may be underestimating their age there. The groups were first raised to drive out or intimidate opponents in areas regarded as theirs. The Chiang Mai assualt on a Democrat party meeting and Chaun Leekpai is wel known. After the coup these groups expanded into the DAAD/UDD including groups such as White Dove which was open about violence. The UDD/DAAD has been involved in anumber of riots and assaults. Human Rights watch have condemned them (and the PAD) for the use of violence. I did read something before, but I cannot recall where, that in the number of violent attacks the UDD (red side) had actually committed more than the PAD although personally I dont think the numebr of attacks is relevent. All violence should be condenmned.

In short in this hideous little power struggle between members of the elite for the cake called Thailand both are quite willing to use any method including violence to win, and both have, and continue to do so. I could similalrly list the PAD acts of violence but as you know these there is little point. I would however, say it is importnant to be as critical and understanding of those you may choose to support if you really feel you must take a side.

[Koo82]

jdinasia,

How can it be a few years? The PAD had activities for quite sometimes, but they officially attacked the Government House and NBT since late Aug / early Sept this year.

Only after they are untouched for a month, the red was formed.

Did you live somewhere with no television, no radio, and no conversations other than what some paid kanman working for TRT told you for the past few years?

Even Thai papers had reports on the saturday people ..

People --- you know I hate Wiki .... b and the article on the UDD is the worst sort of wiki .... but I just can't be bothered to educate Koo so much as to do a bucketload of searching through papers and TV ... so here goes the wiki

The National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). formerly Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) is the anti-People's Alliance for Democracy alliance in Thailand. (นปช. 'Nor Por Chor' in Thai). Its members are red-clad during protests.

This alliance was established in 2006 to support the former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and to oppose the military junta. Thaksin was deposed by the military coup on September 19, 2006. During the military regime in 2006-2007, the UDD actively organized rallies against the ruling military junta. The UDD stopped the rallies when the Thaksin-affiliated parties, led by Samak Sundaravej, won the December 23, 2007 general elections, and resumed their rallies against the PAD rallies in May 2008.

The leaders of the UDD are members of the People's Power Party, academics and social activists. Some members are in the government. UDD leaders are also the TV-NBT daily program critics. The UDD is against military involvement in politics. The UDD is supported by academics and social activists, largely Marxist activists and former members of the Communist Party of Thailand, such as Jai Eungpakorn, Somsak Jiamtheerasakul, Charan Ditthapichai and Dr.Weng Tohjiirakarn. These intellectuals describe the UDD as being the stronghold for the People's Power Party. The UDD attracts supporters and sympathizers of Thaksin Shinawatra. The UDD's activities are supported by the PPP.

The UDD is financially supported by the Thaksin-affiliated parties. In the clash between the PAD and the UDD on Sep 2, 2008 some MPs of the Thaksin-affiliated parties were participants.

again 1000 pardons for quoting Wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unit...st_Dictatorship

OK, I take for granted that they were formed in 2006 but I believe they don't harm the yellows so far.

[Moonrakers]

jdinasia,

How can it be a few years? The PAD had activities for quite sometimes, but they officially attacked the Government House and NBT since late Aug / early Sept this year.

Only after they are untouched for a month, the red was formed.

Did you live somewhere with no television, no radio, and no conversations other than what some paid kanman working for TRT told you for the past few years?

Even Thai papers had reports on the saturday people ..

People --- you know I hate Wiki .... b and the article on the UDD is the worst sort of wiki .... but I just can't be bothered to educate Koo so much as to do a bucketload of searching through papers and TV ... so here goes the wiki

The National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). formerly Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) is the anti-People's Alliance for Democracy alliance in Thailand. (นปช. 'Nor Por Chor' in Thai). Its members are red-clad during protests.

This alliance was established in 2006 to support the former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and to oppose the military junta. Thaksin was deposed by the military coup on September 19, 2006. During the military regime in 2006-2007, the UDD actively organized rallies against the ruling military junta. The UDD stopped the rallies when the Thaksin-affiliated parties, led by Samak Sundaravej, won the December 23, 2007 general elections, and resumed their rallies against the PAD rallies in May 2008.

The leaders of the UDD are members of the People's Power Party, academics and social activists. Some members are in the government. UDD leaders are also the TV-NBT daily program critics. The UDD is against military involvement in politics. The UDD is supported by academics and social activists, largely Marxist activists and former members of the Communist Party of Thailand, such as Jai Eungpakorn, Somsak Jiamtheerasakul, Charan Ditthapichai and Dr.Weng Tohjiirakarn. These intellectuals describe the UDD as being the stronghold for the People's Power Party. The UDD attracts supporters and sympathizers of Thaksin Shinawatra. The UDD's activities are supported by the PPP.

The UDD is financially supported by the Thaksin-affiliated parties. In the clash between the PAD and the UDD on Sep 2, 2008 some MPs of the Thaksin-affiliated parties were participants.

again 1000 pardons for quoting Wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unit...st_Dictatorship

OK, I take for granted that they were formed in 2006 but I believe they don't harm the yellows so far.

And so they did not attack the PAD in broad daylight in Udon then? That never happened despite the video footage available?

Perhaps somebody with more time on their hands could dig it out so that you may be a little more enlightened.

*Edit*

Here it is: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Police-Fire-...&start=2525

Edited November 7, 2008 by globalj

[NCFC]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

[hammered]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

Technically Thai law does not have precedent. And in practice many cases vary in terms of decision from very similar cases. A body of central legal decisons and precedent does not exist. A famous example was the asset concealment case where the Thaksin defence was accepted when the Sanan similar defence was prevuiously rejected.

That is the nature of the Thai code of law

[Plus]

The court ruled 9-0 on whether FIDF was considered a government agency or not (and 5-4 on some other questions, in case you say it was clearly biased).

If that decision (123123/0495304985 or whatever) is so important, Thaksin has another two weeks to lodge an appeal. Apparently all appeals are lodged on internet discussion boards instead - it's easier to sway TV population than argue with CC judges.

Same old tactic of mobilising masses to support your view on something people have no clue whatsoever.

The verdict should be translated to English soon, we'll have a look at judges reasoning for ruling on FIDF status. Until then let's not pretend we can make an informed decision one way or another.

[Old Man River]

The court ruled 9-0 on whether FIDF was considered a government agency or not (and 5-4 on some other questions, in case you say it was clearly biased).

If that decision (123123/0495304985 or whatever) is so important, Thaksin has another two weeks to lodge an appeal. Apparently all appeals are lodged on internet discussion boards instead - it's easier to sway TV population than argue with CC judges.

Same old tactic of mobilising masses to support your view on something people have no clue whatsoever.

The verdict should be translated to English soon, we'll have a look at judges reasoning for ruling on FIDF status. Until then let's not pretend we can make an informed decision one way or another.

Plus, I agree with you, but Hammered is spot on concerning the fickleness of the Thai legal system. The fact is that there are no legal precedents in Thailand. Previous legal decisions have no bearing on future decisions. Hence, regardless of Supreme Court decisions 4655/2533, 8792/2544 and 1486/2549, the CC judges in this case were not obligated to follow these decisions and therefore their 9-0 decision to declare the FIDF a State agency for the Ratchadapisek case is binding.

[slimdog]

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.

Section 29 (ter):

A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial

Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of

reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and

Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its

competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other

business.

NCFC

You could of course argue that the Supreme Courts verdict 4655/2533 was politically motivated, after all the case originated from the 1983 financial crisis. So 2 questions

Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments

Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling

Give you a hint: Ratchada Land

[hammered]

Long before this case came to trial, the Supreme Court determined that FIDF is not a 'State Body'. Decision No. 4655/2533 ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

The Supreme Court ruling takes precence over other courts.

Therefore, clearly within the law Taksin is not in breach of section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, which which he was charged.

The decision of the court was truly politically motivated.

What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.

Section 29 (ter):

A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial

Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of

reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and

Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its

competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other

business.

NCFC

You could of course argue that the Supreme Courts verdict 4655/2533 was politically motivated, after all the case originated from the 1983 financial crisis. So 2 questions

Which financial Institution was the worst offender in paying back it's depositors when it defaulted on payments

Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the ruling

Give you a hint: Ratchada Land

the point is that under Thai law the decisions made relate only to the case they were made in. They do not carry as precednt and that in the next case that comes along even if the details are almost the same the court can make a 180 decison. That is the way Thai law is. Each case is individually decided on and not affected by what has gone before in previous decisons

[Old Man River]

What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.

Section 29 (ter):

A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial

Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of

reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and

Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its

competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other

business.

Interesting not that it has bearing here as the CC judges weren't obligated to follow other courts' decisions, but out of curiosity, since your comments directly counter what is being widely reported elsewhere have you read (in Thai) the actual decision? Please note, I am not debating this with you, I am just wondering. Also, how about SC decisions 8792/2544 and 1486/2549?

[Plus]

There's also possibility that the law the Const. Court based its decision on has its own description of what can be deemed a government agency and what is not.

[Old Man River]

There's also possibility that the law the Const. Court based its decision on has its own description of what can be deemed a government agency and what is not.

I don't think there is any question about this. They were split on some of their other decisions, but on this one it was 9-0. It had to be based on something they all agreed on.

[Plus]

Well, yes, OMR, and thanks to Slimdog and Hammered, too.

What I see here is someone with a clear agenda trying to recruit followers by waving important sounding numbers in front of their noses.

I'm sure NCFC knows that SC ruling of two decades ago doesn't have a legal bearing on the current case but that's not what he posted here and in BP's forum. I think it's a sorry attempt at blatant manipulation of unsuspecting public.

Lawbooks aside, at this point my understanding is that back in 1990 the SC ruling was related to government's responsibility for covering FIDF debt obligations, ie would the Bank of Thailand gurantee all its loans. That degree of control obviously is not necessary to qualify as a "government agency" from the conflict of interest point of view.

Maybe I'm dead wrong - the point is, 9-0 is a pretty strong ruling from people far more expert in laws than anyone else here.

[slimdog]

What the Supreme court ruled in 4655/2533 (1990) was that the FIDF was governed by Section 29 (ter) of the Bank of Thailand Act, and as such was not responsible to pay in full all monies lost by individual investors in the event of financial Institutions failure and that Section 29 (Octo) determined that the FIDF was only liable to pay "reasonable" amounts" due to a financial Institutions failure which results in a serious financial crisis.

Section 29 (ter):

A fund shall be established in the Bank of Thailand and called the “Financial

Institutions Development Fund”. The Fund shall be a juristic person with the purpose of

reconstructing and developing the financial institution system to accord it strength and

Stability. It shall have the “Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund” as its

competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank’s other

business.

Interesting not that it has bearing here as the CC judges weren't obligated to follow other courts' decisions, but out of curiosity, since your comments directly counter what is being widely reported elsewhere have you read (in Thai) the actual decision? Please note, I am not debating this with you, I am just wondering. Also, how about SC decisions 8792/2544 and 1486/2549?

No idea as to 8792/2544 or 1486/2549, to be honest never heard of them before. The only reason I had any recollection on the 1990 ruling is that it was mentioned in an article I read (English not Thai) and was related to Erawan Trust, which was something I was interested in finding out about, primarily because so little was reported about Erawan Trust, and simple google searches turned up virtually nothing. Absolutely nothing to do with the Ratchada land case, but was curious as to why considering how high profile it was, it was always neglected, sad to say I found it more interesting than Thaksins troubles.

[gless]

BTW I would be VERY careful about accusing a Thai court of not following the law and due process

I agree.

I know most of you folks in this forum don't believe much in facts, but let me try:

1. Taksins wife bought some property. This was a bidding process, (second attempt btw, first round attracted no bidders)

2. The seller was FIDF, a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand according to the supreme court

3. She won the bid, beating two commercial developers (Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

4. The seller was satisfied with the result, better deal than expected.

5. Her husband had to sign off on some papers after the deal, because he was her spouse (spousal consent required for this type of transaction)

6. The court decides that the prime minister commited a crime, because he was involved in a transaction with a 'government body'.

7. Compare point 6 and point 2, see if this makes sense.

8. Taksin gets 2 years imprisonment.

9. His wife is not found guilty of anything in this case, and can keep the property. Court decision.

My comment is: Is this the most serious crime the court could find to accuse the most crooked, corrupt criminal in recent Thai history?

Please tell me there is more! Facts I mean, not flippant unsubstantiated claims that this forum is overflowing with.

The information above was collected from the Bangkok post Forum discussion board. I encourage all of you to check it out. Some of you might get an educational experience...

LOL .. not totally accurate .. (the above) ....

But the simple answer again is that was the fastest case to prove because it was a slam dunk ... open .. see the records ... convict him. All done ...

what is accurate then?

And this time, try to state your case with something substantial!

Your remark is exactly of the quality I expected.

I am sure that you know all the details, and if you really put your mind to it, you can explain it in a more convincing manner than 'slam dunk'

Of course this was the fastest, I call it 'quick and dirty'