Pm Vows Reconciliation In 8 Months

[justanothercybertosser]

While the blue sghirt thing is troubling we cant copmpletely ignore what was a pre-planned violent act by the red shirts (when Thaksin pulled his family out every analyst worht their salt knew what was coming) and lay the blame on the other side totally. The red shave been palying a game outside the legal framework too, as did the yellows. By the way your call for a compelte amnesty of all crimes is a red demand. Be careful not to get too close to one sides propoganda.

Anyway negotiations are needed and excuses to avvoid them are not. the relaity is that has to be done through parliament. The other alternative is not good. All sides have parliamentary forces and extra parliamentary ones. The use of the former is better.

As to the Reds playing a game outside the legal frame work - i believe that there were several factors involved. One of the major factors contributing to the escalation were the incidents with the Blue Shirts, in which the Blue Shirts have initiated violence. The previous road blocks may have inconvenienced Bangkok, but they were within the framework of civil disobedience. I have strong doubts that the violence by the Red Shirts was a pre-planned act. I believe that things went out of hand after the Blue Shirt attacks in Pattaya, and could not be controlled anymore. The Red Shirt leadership should have foreseen that they could not control things anymore - that is their fault.

The big question here is how to get political differences back into the parliament, and street protests back into the limits of what is constitutionally permitted. Amnesties and reversal of laws that have banned a major proportion of politicians just because of their party positions are in my opinion an important step to achieve this.

Just because the Red Shirts make a very sensible demand does not mean that i am close to their propaganda. All sides in this conflict have made fatal mistakes. The present tone in the mass media is to shift all blame to the Red Shirts, and to whitewash equally grave mistakes of the Government (such as the Blue Shirts, such as constant belittling of the Red Shirt movement, and refusals to enter into substantial negotiations).

For how much longer does Thailand need to be stuck in the vicious circle of escalation and revenge? There needs to be a point where a fresh start can be made, and preferably before more people have to die, and before the economy is completely wrecked.

[dbrenn]

The mafia type politicians in Thailand though can still operate with the existence of those laws, such as Newin, who regardless of his 5 year ban can still control enough MP's to be a very important power broker now in the Democrat led coalition, can even be filmed and photographed in a hug with Abhisit.

Really affected are the many politicians who have done nothing wrong, and do not have the money or pull to send their own representatives instead. Those are the vast majority of the banned politicians.

That's the painful truth the Abhisit is unable to confront.

In spite of his vaunted anti-corruption credentials, he relied on a Godfather like Newin to get installed into office, and to keep him there. Newin had been banned from office for the very corruption that Abhisit stands against, and yet Abhisit publicly threw his arms around Newin and gave him a loving hug, because Newin brought the 22 MPs that he controls over into Abhisit's government, without which Abhsit would not be there now. Flowers were exchanged, and I wonder what else was exchanged too. The past, and all the high moral standards, were conveniently and selectively swept under the carpet for the sake of political convenience. Deja Vu.

The Dems are as tainted as the rest of them. They rely on the very same Godfathers who served in the TRT to stay in office.

Edited May 4, 2009 by dbrenn

[sriracha john]

It's impossible to believe that dissolved party executives didn't have complicit knowledge of the actions of the party executives that were actually caught committing bribery and other electoral frauds for the benefit of the party....

Keep the laws just the way they are.

And it's impossible to believe that a man like Newin, once a key member of TRT/PPP, didn't have complicit knowledge of all those misdeeds either. Where is Newin now? In Abhisit's coalition. Has he been held accountable?

None of them have. That's part of the problem. They've all continued to be involved in politics in form or another.

Of course not. It's just a coincidence that the only people who are held accountable for corruption, all 210 of them, are on just one side of the political fence, and that alll the ones on the other side are squeaky clean.

210 haven't been held accountable. Zero have.

Face it, corruption is rampant at every section of Thai society, and the politicians top the list.

Which is precisely why it's time to do something about it... and the new law makes very positive in-roads to that effect. That's the reason they are squealing like stuck pigs over it. For once, it begins to hold them all accountable for their mutual conspiracy.

Keep the laws just the way they are.

[sriracha john]

Looks like another chapter in the saga may be about to commence:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1611...itution-changes

Wonder what they'll do this time?

So much for reconciliation.

They have been standing down... but changing the constitutional law is the same thing they opposed when Samak/Somchai were PM, which shows consistency on their part, and were trying to do the same thing. because it's a backward step in that it removes accountability from those who the amendment will excuse.

That's not reconciliation... that's undeserved exoneration.

Hopefully, the Senate panels will recognize that.

Keep the laws just the way they are.

Edited May 4, 2009 by sriracha john

[animatic]

Actually Newin is not in ANY COALITION, he is not even in office.

His Buri Ram friends are and legally.

Newin controls the 'Friends of Newin" group of MPs. Recall the day when Newin was photographed giving flowers to Abhisit just after he had told Thaksin that it 'was all over' on the phone, shifting his people over to Abhisit's side and paving the way for Abhisit's installation once it seemed like Thaksin was a dead duck. It's reasonable to wonder how Abhisit can look at himself in the mirror, knowing that his supporters were sullied by tenure in the TRT/PPP, and were therefore involved in all these corrupt practices that he claims to have no part in.

What is our 'Mr. Clean' Abhisit doing associating with Newin and his clique? By the yellow's own logic of zero tolerance on corruption, that would be as if Barrack Obama had relied on the support of the likes of Al Copone to get into office .

Oops - I forgot the obvious: Newin controls 22 MPs that Abhisit needed to get onside so that he could claim the job of PM. So much for the moral high ground that the Dems keep harping on about.

Face the facts - the Dems are as tainted as the rest of them. They relied on the support of corrupt old generals and former members of corrupt organisations like Newin to get into office. They can't expect people to now believe their promises of reconciliation, just because they put a nice looking clean cut facade like Abhisit in front of their crooked old guard masters.

You seem to always try and quote me out of context.

Actually Newin is not in ANY COALITION, he is not even in office.

His Buri Ram friends are and legally.

Obviously power is not exclusively in the hands of MP's.

Gee was it ever really... nope.

Is it ever really in any country... nope.

Politics is NOT a clean business. That's a fact everywhere.

We should go for the least objectionable players,

doing the most good, vs the most objectionable players

doing the most to enrich themselves and the least for the people.

The old Dems are not the new Dems,

same as the individual parts of other parties co-opted into TRT were not TRT.

TRT was a new breed of malevolence and used new rules.

PTP is only a shadow of it's step child PPP, this not the same,

even as it aspires to be.

10 years on, many of the players change, ten years on,

it's a different ballgame on a different playing field.

The old insults are out of time and out of place.

Oh get real! Now you are saying that Newin is a rehabilitated Godfather and should be forgiven just because he has switched sides. Whom else should we forgive and rehabilitate, and by what set of moral guidelines? How ridiculous.

It amazes me how you misread most anything I write.

Intentionally maybe? In no sense is ANY of your response on the mark.

[sriracha john]

It's known as a conspiracy... the same sort of laws that have done much to bring down organized crime syndicates around

the world.

It's impossible to believe that dissolved party executives didn't have complicit knowledge of the actions of the party executives that were actually caught committing bribery and other electoral frauds for the benefit of the party. For example, are we really supposed to believe that the likes of Samak and Noppadope had no prior knowledge of Yongyuth's actions for the benefit of the PPP? Or that Thaksin's sister, and TRT MP and TRT party executive, Yaowapa was kept completely in the dark regarding the fraudulent actions of other TRT party executives? Puhhhhlease.... pull my other leg.

The new laws are admittedly tough... but they need to be... if the endless cycle of criminally-tainted elections is ever to be broken or at least lessened. There are a lot of mafia types that are imprisoned and crime syndicates that have been significantly weakened since the initiation of the application of these laws against them.

Keep the laws just the way they are.

Really affected are the many politicians who have done nothing wrong, and do not have the money or pull to send their own representatives instead. Those are the vast majority of the banned politicians.

oh cry me a river....

these are Party Executives that got banned. Particularly with the TRT they wallowed around with their snouts in the trough plenty long enough to all get filthy rich... and for Thaksin to even become the richest man in Thailand.

Party Executives held regular Party Executive Meetings. What do you think they discussed? It's called collusion and conspiracy and they got busted for it.... tough. Sucks to be them, I guess.

[animatic]

Ditto.

The vast majority of TRT MP's soon became PPP MP's,

and proceeded to screw up in MUCH the same way.

They learned NOTHING from their mentors fates.

Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The only apparent learning was to limit the number of Executives in the PPP.

And it looks like PTP doesn't have enough COMPETENT leaders to increase the number.

Now we get PTP, a barely shadowy image of TRT.

Since they have been caught lying to the press after Songkran,

and earlier in the Censure Debates

and Thaksin's general dissembling during the Songkran riots,

it would appear this 3rd string Jr. Varsity has NOT LEARNED ANYTHING also.

Edited May 4, 2009 by animatic

[justanothercybertosser]

oh cry me a river....

these are Party Executives that got banned. Particularly with the TRT they wallowed around with their snouts in the trough plenty long enough to all get filthy rich... and for Thaksin to even become the richest man in Thailand.

Party Executives held regular Party Executive Meetings. What do you think they discussed? It's called collusion and conspiracy and they got busted for it.... tough. Sucks to be them, I guess.

Thaksin is not the richest man in Thailand, never was. The increase of his wealth during his premiership was en par with the increase of worth of the SET, several of his competitors became even wealthier if seen in proportion to the SET increase. Other large corporations such as CP group and CPB are worth more than Shincorp.

"Collusion and conspiracy" has to be proven, and not just alleged based on hearasay and rumors of what they may have discussed or not. These laws simply ban every executive member regardless of personal wrong doing or not. In the conspiracy laws in the US such conspiracy has to be proven, these bans here are not based on any proof whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong, the persons that have been directly proven and convicted of election law violations should be banned (and maybe even sent to prison). But these laws as intruduced by the coup group are not due process.

"Sucks to be them"? No, unfortuanetly what really "sucks" now is the mess Thailand is in, and can't find its way out, which is to a large part due to such shortsighted knee jerk reactions to counter very complex and long standing socio-political problems.

[dbrenn]

It amazes me how you misread most anything I write.

Intentionally maybe? In no sense is ANY of your response on the mark.

Response to what? You writing is incoherent, but I think that you are trying to say that Newin is not 'in Abhisit's govenment'. My retort is that controlling 22 of Abhisit's MPs counts as 'in Abhisit's government'.

Now explain how Abhisit alliance with Newin the Godfather has no relation on whether Abhisit can credibly use a clean image as a means to reconciliation. Next, clarify how you reconcile your abhorrence of corruption with the fact that Abhisit associates with an ex-TRT/PPP Godfather.

Try to be more concise, and there's no need to capitalise. We can all read text in lower case.

[sriracha john]

Thaksin is not the richest man in Thailand, never was.

With his 2.2 Billion Baht tied up and others, he may not be now, but he was earlier...

Thaksin could very well be #1 easily with $6.5 billion, almost double what Forbes says Chaleo has as #1 with $3.5 billion....

Government must hit Thaksin where it hurts most

Let's deal with the problems at hand and explore how we should deal with Thaksin to prevent his attempts to derail the new charter and cause other political troubles.

No doubt Thaksin is more than angry after the freezing of more than 65 Billion Baht of his assets. That's just peanuts, as we know that he has at least 200 Billion Baht *that would be the 6.5 Billion Dollars I was referring to that would easily make him Thailand's richest man* stashed abroad in various places, such as in savings accounts and investments in funds and securities through nominees here and abroad.

The increase of his wealth during his premiership was en par with the increase of worth of the SET, several of his competitors became even wealthier if seen in proportion to the SET increase. Other large corporations such as CP group and CPB are worth more than Shincorp.

His net-worth growth was way beyond anyone else and way out of line with what was expected. He went from being a billionaire in baht to a billionaire in pound sterling in 5 years... how many baht in a pound are there?

"Sucks to be them"? No, unfortuanetly what really "sucks" now is the mess Thailand is in, and can't find its way out, which is to a large part due to such shortsighted knee jerk reactions to counter very complex and long standing socio-political problems.

What sucks is their continually squealing at being held accountable and others apologizing and wishing to excuse their actions. Prisons are full of like-minded "but...but...it wasn't me" pleadings.

[Plus]

Re. Abhisit's popular mandate - his party got the largest number of party list votes in 2007 elections.

According to the latest polls 60% oppose House Dissolution and 70% oppose Abhisit resigning.

These are the facts that the losing party, the reds, are refusing to recognise against all reason. Why should we believe they'd recognise new election results?

What constitution the new elections should comply with to satisfy the reds? There's only one in place - 2007, and they don't like it. Thay can't have snap elections before amendment process is complete, which will take months, why demand elections now?

Political system as it is forces people like Abhisit go out and hug folks like Newin. That's unavoidable, unless there's a major change in the way the representatives are elected, and the only proposal so far has been Pad's new politics. No alternative solutions from the reds, sadly.

If reds are really abhor Newin so much, they should think about what would happen if the amnesty goes through and Newin comes back to power legally, along with some real nasty characters of Newin's vintage. That somehow doesn't bother them, which makes one wonder - when will they start thinking about "real" democracy instead of returning Thaksin and his crooks to power. My personal answer - NEVER. They have no credibility as a democratic force in this country.

[animatic]

My writing is clearly not to your rhetorical tastes,

yet it is far from incoherent, as many have told me.

Unless you are a poor ESL student trying to earn more scholastic tuition.

In which case getting a real job would be more productive.

Shooting the messenger is not any way to win an argument.

[hammered]

While the blue sghirt thing is troubling we cant copmpletely ignore what was a pre-planned violent act by the red shirts (when Thaksin pulled his family out every analyst worht their salt knew what was coming) and lay the blame on the other side totally. The red shave been palying a game outside the legal framework too, as did the yellows. By the way your call for a compelte amnesty of all crimes is a red demand. Be careful not to get too close to one sides propoganda.

Anyway negotiations are needed and excuses to avvoid them are not. the relaity is that has to be done through parliament. The other alternative is not good. All sides have parliamentary forces and extra parliamentary ones. The use of the former is better.

As to the Reds playing a game outside the legal frame work - i believe that there were several factors involved. One of the major factors contributing to the escalation were the incidents with the Blue Shirts, in which the Blue Shirts have initiated violence. The previous road blocks may have inconvenienced Bangkok, but they were within the framework of civil disobedience. I have strong doubts that the violence by the Red Shirts was a pre-planned act. I believe that things went out of hand after the Blue Shirt attacks in Pattaya, and could not be controlled anymore. The Red Shirt leadership should have foreseen that they could not control things anymore - that is their fault.

The big question here is how to get political differences back into the parliament, and street protests back into the limits of what is constitutionally permitted. Amnesties and reversal of laws that have banned a major proportion of politicians just because of their party positions are in my opinion an important step to achieve this.

Just because the Red Shirts make a very sensible demand does not mean that i am close to their propaganda. All sides in this conflict have made fatal mistakes. The present tone in the mass media is to shift all blame to the Red Shirts, and to whitewash equally grave mistakes of the Government (such as the Blue Shirts, such as constant belittling of the Red Shirt movement, and refusals to enter into substantial negotiations).

For how much longer does Thailand need to be stuck in the vicious circle of escalation and revenge? There needs to be a point where a fresh start can be made, and preferably before more people have to die, and before the economy is completely wrecked.

I dont disagree totally with paragraph two although I dont think criminal cases should be amnestied as that kind of amnesty by its nature impinges on the democratic rights of the victims in say murder cases and of course others. Those banned by dint of being a party executive is a different standard of case. There was at worst some inaction and at best no knowledge. It would seem reasonable to amnesty those peopel without impinging on rights of others. I also think you overplay the innocence of the reds. Thaksin did remove his family and that immediately had people saying "watch out for vioolence in BKK" and the PTP "amnesty everyone up to May 5" bill was a bit tactically silly in signalling something was coming. Then it did......

The point now is to get the moderates of all sides involved in finding some way forward that most can agree with across all groups. You wont get everyone agreeing but a majority is necessary as is at least some representation from every group. Basically a set of rules needs to be established and then a free and fair election. It could still happen.

[Plus]

The big question here is how to get political differences back into the parliament,

First step would be to stop mobilising red masses on the streets when PTP lost the parliament battle.

Then they'd perhaps see that MPs do not represent them, they'd see them for self-serving, greedy bastards that they are.

Yes, sweeping the rubbish off the streets and into parliament would relieve the tensions for a while, but the rubbish is still there, and it appears to be gaining the upper hand.

When Abhisit got his position many people sighed and thought that at least the problem with parliament was fixed, but it was just a temporary glitch, the parliament doesn't function as representative of the people.

Then we had so called "no confidence" debate that demonstrated that the parliament is not being used for its purpose, then we had PTP walking out on amnesty/amendment commission. I thought it was clear by then that the parliament is hopeless. But now Chai has managed to put two commissions together, and people again think that parliament is working.

Reminds me of treating infected Windows - every now and then some ignorant user can open a page, so he thinks that the system is ok, the cleaning is not necessary. When you eventually clean it for him, he doesn't want to take safety precautions, thinking that if his Windows is not infected now, they are not necessary. Then he scares the shit out of everyone by demanding to scan each and every USB stick that touches his machine, only to open some e-mail attachment to "download ringtones" and get everything infected again.

Come to think of it - the usual virus behavior - first it installs some "helping" application, like a magic toolbar or download accelerator, something it tells you can't live without. then it disables your avti-virus software, resets your home page and doesn't allow you to ever tune into any other internet site as your home. Then it replicates itself all over your system and suddenly it's everywehre and you are not in control anymore - it locked you out of registry editor, you can't install anything that threatens it, and the only way to "solve the problem" is to erase the whole disk and lose everything. Or maybe you can disable it by running a special AV cleaner from USB stick, but if you don't do a complete cleanup aftewards, it will come back, and even if do a complete clean up, you are likely to download it again if you don't change your surfing practice.

Some AV programs put viruses into a "chest" - safe location in your computer where they can't do any harm. Then some idiot decides to see what happens if the chest is unlocked and all the caught viruses are released, maybe they were "false positives".

[Old Man River]

Could you have now the decency to answer my question, please, after i answered yours: what about the Blue Shirts?

That is the million dollar question, isn't it? I really don't know anymore than what has been reported in the media. Below is one article that makes a great deal of accusations, many of which I don't buy, but then, who knows. This is such a fluid situation that anything is possible.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01...cs_30101785.php

I know the article. It is incomplete.

The person responsible for internal security is Suthep, and therefore the only one who could possibly order the military to work with the Blue Shirts in Pattaya. This collaboration between military and Blue Shirts has been proven. Suthep called the Blue Shirts "volonteers from Chonburi province", which is a blatant lie.

Newin's involvement has been proven.

Suthep and Abhisit have been more than evasive when asked about the Blue Shirts.

The big question is, where does that leave us now? Have things deteriorated so badly?

How can we trust Abhsit when he talks confidently about reconciliation, while his right hand man is playing very nasty and ugly games outside any legal framework, and does not need to leave his post?

The Blue Shirt incident leaves only two possibilities:

1) Abhisit is not in any position of power

2) He is party of those games, and therefore not what he pretends to be

Both options are very troubling.

You have finally found a middle ground that both of us can agree with.

While Abhisit's rebound from Pattaya shows he has more power than many thought, it is well known that without Newin this coalition would never have been formed. Newin wants the PM's role and is expected to seek a new election towards the end of this year. What I think we are seeing now is his solidifying his position so there will be no doubt about which group will win the election and who will end up being PM. I doubt Newin has any interest in national reconciliation to the length that it does not benefit him. If I am correct, then Abhisit is not party to these games.

Given my view above, Abhisit's ability to counter this and bring us back to the 1997 constitution and give amnesty to those not convicted of crimes or have warrants outstanding is the direction that should be supported.

Now that Thaksin is not being viewed as a threat, it almost looks like a free for all for power, but I continue to believe that given this free for all, Abhisit is one of the very few who is striving for democracy as we know it in the western world. This is probably due to his background, which many attack, but is really one of his best assets.

[justanothercybertosser]

You have finally found a middle ground that both of us can agree with.

While Abhisit's rebound from Pattaya shows he has more power than many thought, it is well known that without Newin this coalition would never have been formed. Newin wants the PM's role and is expected to seek a new election towards the end of this year. What I think we are seeing now is his solidifying his position so there will be no doubt about which group will win the election and who will end up being PM. I doubt Newin has any interest in national reconciliation to the length that it does not benefit him. If I am correct, then Abhisit is not party to these games.

Given my view above, Abhisit's ability to counter this and bring us back to the 1997 constitution and give amnesty to those not convicted of crimes or have warrants outstanding is the direction that should be supported.

Now that Thaksin is not being viewed as a threat, it almost looks like a free for all for power, but I continue to believe that given this free for all, Abhisit is one of the very few who is striving for democracy as we know it in the western world. This is probably due to his background, which many attack, but is really one of his best assets.

Abhisit by himself might be a good prime minister.

The problem is that he has made too many faustian deals, beginning with the decision to boycott the 2006 elections, his deals with the PAD, allowing Democrat MP's openly supporting the PAD, and even himself appearing on the ground to support PAD at several occasions. He made deals with the military, and with Newin.

Now is payback time, and he is not his own man anymore - a result of coming prematurely to power, before even having managed to clean up his own party, and to build a proper power base. His background would have been an asset if he would have spent a few more years learning about the background of the average Thai, of which he has not much knowledge of or experience with.

I view the biggest mistake he has made, to boycott the 2006 elections. He lost the moral highground and it opened the gates to the military coup. Now he is PM, and not ready for the challenge. I would of course support his move to go back to the '97 constitution, but i very much doubt that he will be able to. There is too much resistence within his own party even, not even speaking of the PAD announcements to protest against such a move.

Abhisit in now in the bed he made for himself, and having no other choice than sharing it with some very nasty old hags.

[Old Man River]

You have finally found a middle ground that both of us can agree with.

While Abhisit's rebound from Pattaya shows he has more power than many thought, it is well known that without Newin this coalition would never have been formed. Newin wants the PM's role and is expected to seek a new election towards the end of this year. What I think we are seeing now is his solidifying his position so there will be no doubt about which group will win the election and who will end up being PM. I doubt Newin has any interest in national reconciliation to the length that it does not benefit him. If I am correct, then Abhisit is not party to these games.

Given my view above, Abhisit's ability to counter this and bring us back to the 1997 constitution and give amnesty to those not convicted of crimes or have warrants outstanding is the direction that should be supported.

Now that Thaksin is not being viewed as a threat, it almost looks like a free for all for power, but I continue to believe that given this free for all, Abhisit is one of the very few who is striving for democracy as we know it in the western world. This is probably due to his background, which many attack, but is really one of his best assets.

Abhisit by himself might be a good prime minister.

The problem is that he has made too many faustian deals, beginning with the decision to boycott the 2006 elections, his deals with the PAD, allowing Democrat MP's openly supporting the PAD, and even himself appearing on the ground to support PAD at several occasions. He made deals with the military, and with Newin.

Now is payback time, and he is not his own man anymore - a result of coming prematurely to power, before even having managed to clean up his own party, and to build a proper power base. His background would have been an asset if he would have spent a few more years learning about the background of the average Thai, of which he has not much knowledge of or experience with.

I view the biggest mistake he has made, to boycott the 2006 elections. He lost the moral highground and it opened the gates to the military coup. Now he is PM, and not ready for the challenge. I would of course support his move to go back to the '97 constitution, but i very much doubt that he will be able to. There is too much resistence within his own party even, not even speaking of the PAD announcements to protest against such a move.

Abhisit in now in the bed he made for himself, and having no other choice than sharing it with some very nasty old hags.

Make no mistake. The 06 coup was going to happen whether the Democrats boycotted the election or not. I think you know this so let's not digress to the reasons for the coup.

There is nothing clean about politics and Thailand is no different. Political deals are the way of life.

I really don't think Abhisit will be successful either. There are too many interest groups to where a relatively free and fair election are not in their best interests. This isn't going to happen here. Not now, and maybe not in my lifetime (and I expect to be around for a long time).

[justanothercybertosser]

Make no mistake. The 06 coup was going to happen whether the Democrats boycotted the election or not. I think you know this so let's not digress to the reasons for the coup.

There is nothing clean about politics and Thailand is no different. Political deals are the way of life.

I really don't think Abhisit will be successful either. There are too many interest groups to where a relatively free and fair election are not in their best interests. This isn't going to happen here. Not now, and maybe not in my lifetime (and I expect to be around for a long time).

I am not sure the coup makers would have gotten the nod if there would have been a elected government in place, and not a caretaker government in dire straights.

But the main question is the moral high ground. If Abhisit would have stayed away from the PAD, waited a bit longer, he would have one day easily been a PM with an overwhelming popular mandate. Thaksin was the right man at the right time - a dirty player who managed to keep at least some of the dirt at bay (i am sorry, but i do not buy into all the hyperbole surrounding Thaksin - none of the partly outrageous conspiracy theories are supported by anything else than purposely spread rumor). People would have tired of him, even without the PAD his star was a waning star. Whatever some here may read into Thaksin's intentions, in the end most of his power came from popular support, and not by being accepted by the old elites.

This is and was a transition time for Thailand, even though the old elites may have won the recent battles, they are a thing of the past. Abhsit would have been a very good PM after the battles have been fought out. Now he is PM, before his time, and maybe together with Thaksin the most disputed PM Thailand ever had in its post-prem period, and in the middle of the mess.

I am convinced that within our lifetimes Thailand will reach relatively free and fair elections, but not before a lot of blood has been shed.

[animatic]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

They never were as all powerful as they pretended to be.

You can say all you want about lost moral high ground.

I don't think it did anything less than NOT VALIDATE a moral abyss,

and so actually created a new moral high ground in Thai politics.

At first I thought it was a poor decision, based on other countries and other laws,

but I saw it differently soon after.

It was one of the more astute readings of voting numbers

and the laws I have seen in a LONG time.

It is the SINGLE most important decision in the recent history of Thailand,

because it set in motion CHANGE, it set in motion the uses of the law against

large corrupt parties jiggering the system with impunity.

The second most important decision was Thaksin burning Sondhi Limontkul

in business and creating an enemy with significantly more media savvy than himself.

3rd is The Temessk Sale

and Thaksin's hubris and nose thumbing at the people that it showed in stark relief.

So two gross Thaksin mistakes of judgment

and one astute Abhisit move.

And the game changed for all players.

Edited May 4, 2009 by animatic

[chrislarsson]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

They never were as all powerful as they pretended to be.

You can say all you want about lost moral high ground.

I don't think it did anything less than NOT VALIDATE a moral abyss,

and so actually created a new moral high ground in Thai politics.

At first I thought it was a poor decision, based on other countries and other laws,

but I saw it differently soon after.

It was one of the more astute readings of voting numbers

and the laws I have seen in a LONG time.

It is the SINGLE most important decision in the recent history of Thailand,

because it set in motion CHANGE, it set in motion the uses of the law against

large corrupt parties jiggering the system with impunity.

The second most important decision was Thaksin burning Sondhi Limontkul

in business and creating an enemy with significantly more media savvy than himself.

3rd is The Temessk Sale

and Thaksin's hubris and nose thumbing at the people that it showed in stark relief.

So two gross Thaksin mistakes of judgment

and one astute Abhisit move.

And the game changed for all players.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway? The official reason for the boycott was that Thaksin was trying to divert the attention from the Shin Corp sale.

Thaksin was Sondhi's best friend when his associates got powerful positions in the government, which resulted in him getting 1 billion baht for free from KTB. When they got fired, Thaksin suddenly became his biggest enemy.

About the Shin Corp sales, I'm still waiting for a response regarding what the tax code say on capital gains sales of stocks. It's becoming pretty obvious that nobody here knows, which means that nobody here know what the crime was.

Edited May 4, 2009 by chrislarsson

[animatic]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

They never were as all powerful as they pretended to be.

You can say all you want about lost moral high ground.

I don't think it did anything less than NOT VALIDATE a moral abyss,

and so actually created a new moral high ground in Thai politics.

At first I thought it was a poor decision, based on other countries and other laws,

but I saw it differently soon after.

It was one of the more astute readings of voting numbers

and the laws I have seen in a LONG time.

It is the SINGLE most important decision in the recent history of Thailand,

because it set in motion CHANGE, it set in motion the uses of the law against

large corrupt parties jiggering the system with impunity.

The second most important decision was Thaksin burning Sondhi Limontkul

in business and creating an enemy with significantly more media savvy than himself.

3rd is The Temessk Sale

and Thaksin's hubris and nose thumbing at the people that it showed in stark relief.

So two gross Thaksin mistakes of judgment

and one astute Abhisit move.

And the game changed for all players.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway? The official reason for the boycott was that Thaksin was trying to divert the attention from the Shin Corp sale.

Thaksin was Sondhi's best friend when his associates got powerful positions in the government and he got 1 billion baht for free from KTB. When they got fired because of incompetence, Thaksin suddenly became his biggest enemy.

About the Shin Corp sales, I'm still waiting for a response regarding what the tax code say on capital gains sales of stocks. It's becoming pretty obvious that nobody here knows, which means that nobody here know what the crime was.

TRT was totally prepared to rig the election.

It was the recently passed election that made that clear to the Democrats.

Thaksin called the snap election to white wash the Shin Sale, and 'prove the people don't care'

The Dems scuttled his attempt at sweeping it under the table.

He hasn't recovered from that move.

The TAX CODE seems to have been used to convict his children for doing daddy's bidding.

And got his WIFE convicted for attempting to do an end run and lying about it to the courts.

I would say it says they did the wrong things with their money.

[chrislarsson]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

They never were as all powerful as they pretended to be.

You can say all you want about lost moral high ground.

I don't think it did anything less than NOT VALIDATE a moral abyss,

and so actually created a new moral high ground in Thai politics.

At first I thought it was a poor decision, based on other countries and other laws,

but I saw it differently soon after.

It was one of the more astute readings of voting numbers

and the laws I have seen in a LONG time.

It is the SINGLE most important decision in the recent history of Thailand,

because it set in motion CHANGE, it set in motion the uses of the law against

large corrupt parties jiggering the system with impunity.

The second most important decision was Thaksin burning Sondhi Limontkul

in business and creating an enemy with significantly more media savvy than himself.

3rd is The Temessk Sale

and Thaksin's hubris and nose thumbing at the people that it showed in stark relief.

So two gross Thaksin mistakes of judgment

and one astute Abhisit move.

And the game changed for all players.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway? The official reason for the boycott was that Thaksin was trying to divert the attention from the Shin Corp sale.

Thaksin was Sondhi's best friend when his associates got powerful positions in the government and he got 1 billion baht for free from KTB. When they got fired because of incompetence, Thaksin suddenly became his biggest enemy.

About the Shin Corp sales, I'm still waiting for a response regarding what the tax code say on capital gains sales of stocks. It's becoming pretty obvious that nobody here knows, which means that nobody here know what the crime was.

TRT was totally prepared to rig the election.

It was the recently passed election that made that clear to the Democrats.

Thaksin called the snap election to white wash the Shin Sale, and 'prove the people don't care'

The Dems scuttled his attempt at sweeping it under the table.

He hasn't recovered from that move.

The TAX CODE seems to have been used to convict his children for doing daddy's bidding.

And got his WIFE convicted for attempting to do an end run and lying about it to the courts.

I would say it says they did the wrong things with their money.

Like I said why would u rig an election that u would win anyway. Even the worst dictators are more than happy with 50.1% of the votes.

It's was his children who owned the stocks, so who else was going to sell it. What I want to know is how much tax an ordinary Thai would have to pay when doing the same sale?

[ballpoint]

Like I said why would u rig an election that u would win anyway. Even the worst dictators are more than happy with 50.1% of the votes.

It's was his children who owned the stocks, so who else was going to sell it. What I want to know is how much tax an ordinary Thai would have to pay when doing the same sale?

For a start, an ordinary citizen wouldn't have been able to change the law in order to make the sale in the first place. Okay, maybe it was time for the law to be changed anyway, then in that case, an ordinary citizen would not have been able to line up a buyer months in advance, knowing that the law was going to be changed the day before he sold it. And further more, wouldn't have been able to have his family buy a bunch of shares at 1Baht each, knowing that the law was to be changed and the company able to be sold the following day.

[chrislarsson]

Like I said why would u rig an election that u would win anyway. Even the worst dictators are more than happy with 50.1% of the votes.

It's was his children who owned the stocks, so who else was going to sell it. What I want to know is how much tax an ordinary Thai would have to pay when doing the same sale?

For a start, an ordinary citizen wouldn't have been able to change the law in order to make the sale in the first place. Okay, maybe it was time for the law to be changed anyway, then in that case, an ordinary citizen would not have been able to line up a buyer months in advance, knowing that the law was going to be changed the day before he sold it. And further more, wouldn't have been able to have his family buy a bunch of shares at 1Baht each, knowing that the law was to be changed and the company able to be sold the following day.

The law that was changed was about foreign ownership. This is a different issue than the tax issue.

The sales to his family was done between 2000 and 2002, and have even less to do with any change in the law.

[BigSnake]

Hope Mr. PM pledge comes true

[ballpoint]

The law that was changed was about foreign ownership. This is a different issue than the tax issue.

The sales to his family was done between 2000 and 2002, and have even less to do with any change in the law.

Just making the point that it is the whole deal that stinks. An ordinary Thai would never be in the position to make this deal. And, I was referring to the 329 million shares his children bought from Ample Rich Investment Co at 1 Baht each, and sold three days later at 49.25 Baht each. "It (The Opposition) has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate how his son and daughter were able to buy millions of shares just before the deal was done and then resell them for nearly 50 times as much, just three days later."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4668856.stm

How did they know the law was to change, and, even, how did they know the company was to be sold? Yes, yes, a rhetorical question, their father told them, meaning he used his position as PM to benefit his family, and also broke insider trading laws. Of course, back then, the courts were accepting his lunchboxes, and no wrong doing was found. Another unanswered question is how did Ample Rich, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, and wholly owned by Thaksin, get the money to buy the shares in the first place, given any large amounts of money transferred overseas must be declared?

[chrislarsson]

The law that was changed was about foreign ownership. This is a different issue than the tax issue.

The sales to his family was done between 2000 and 2002, and have even less to do with any change in the law.

Just making the point that it is the whole deal that stinks. An ordinary Thai would never be in the position to make this deal. And, I was referring to the 329 million shares his children bought from Ample Rich Investment Co at 1 Baht each, and sold three days later at 49.25 Baht each. "It (The Opposition) has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate how his son and daughter were able to buy millions of shares just before the deal was done and then resell them for nearly 50 times as much, just three days later."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4668856.stm

How did they know the law was to change, and, even, how did they know the company was to be sold? Yes, yes, a rhetorical question, their father told them, meaning he used his position as PM to benefit his family, and also broke insider trading laws. Of course, back then, the courts were accepting his lunchboxes, and no wrong doing was found. Another unanswered question is how did Ample Rich, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, and wholly owned by Thaksin, get the money to buy the shares in the first place, given any large amounts of money transferred overseas must be declared?

I haven't claimed that there was nothing wrong. I would just like to understand it.

The link you gave does not contain any of text that you embedded?

As far as I know the judges in the Supreme Court are the same today as it was back then? And it cleared him of any wrong doing and no irregularities were found.

Of course they knew that the law was going to change. Would selling Shin a couple of months after the law was changed make any difference?

As I understand it, the transfer from Ample Rich was made so that Thaksin could receive the money from Temasak into Thailand. If he wanted to avoid paying tax, or if he wanted money outside of Thailand, he would simply sell it directly from Ample Rich to Temasak. So he obviously wanted to invest the money inside Thailand.

Just because something smells wrong, does not mean it is. Especially not when there are such strong emotions about it.

Edited May 4, 2009 by chrislarsson

[ballpoint]

I haven't claimed that there was nothing wrong. I would just like to understand it.

The link you gave does not contain any of text that you embedded?

As far as I know the judges in the Supreme Court are the same today as it was back then? And it cleared him of any wrong doing and no irregularities were found.

Of course they knew that the law was going to change. But why would that make it into illegal insider trading? Would selling Shin a couple of months after the law was changed make any difference?

Just because something smells wrong, does not mean it is. Especially not when there are such strong emotions about it.

Try the link, the text I have italicised is there, under the sub heading "surprised".

Anyone buying shares with the knowledge that something major that will favourably affect the value of those shares is about to happen, and that knowledge is unknown to the general public, is guilty of insider trading. In this case, both the knowledge that the law would change, plus that the company was about to be sold, both come under this. Even if you own a company, and know it is to be sold, you will still be convicted if you use that knowledge to unfairly make a profit from its shares. Another example would be if I worked for an oil company which made a huge discovery somewhere and went and bought as many shares of that company as I could before that discovery was announced. I would be guilty of insider trading. I'm using inside knowledge, that the general public are not privy to. No different to spending 329,000,000 baht on shares because I know the company is to be sold in three days time, making these same shares worth 16,203,250,000 baht. To make matters worse, the initial transaction was not even reported to the Thai stock exchange, thus keeping it entirely secret from the public. Role model behaviour from the "peoples PM"?

If the judges are the same now as then, why is Thaksin so afraid to face trial?

[chrislarsson]

I haven't claimed that there was nothing wrong. I would just like to understand it.

The link you gave does not contain any of text that you embedded?

As far as I know the judges in the Supreme Court are the same today as it was back then? And it cleared him of any wrong doing and no irregularities were found.

Of course they knew that the law was going to change. But why would that make it into illegal insider trading? Would selling Shin a couple of months after the law was changed make any difference?

Just because something smells wrong, does not mean it is. Especially not when there are such strong emotions about it.

Try the link, the text I have italicised is there, under the sub heading "surprised".

Anyone buying shares with the knowledge that something major that will favourably affect the value of those shares is about to happen, and that knowledge is unknown to the general public, is guilty of insider trading. In this case, both the knowledge that the law would change, plus that the company was about to be sold, both come under this. Even if you own a company, and know it is to be sold, you will still be convicted if you use that knowledge to unfairly make a profit from its shares. Another example would be if I worked for an oil company which made a huge discovery somewhere and went and bought as many shares of that company as I could before that discovery was announced. I would be guilty of insider trading. I'm using inside knowledge, that the general public are not privy to. No different to spending 329,000,000 baht on shares because I know the company is to be sold in three days time, making these same shares worth 16,203,250,000 baht. To make matters worse, the initial transaction was not even reported to the Thai stock exchange, thus keeping it entirely secret from the public. Role model behaviour from the "peoples PM"?

If the judges are the same now as then, why is Thaksin so afraid to face trial?

Yr right. Sorry about that.

I understand insider trading well. So why didn't he just wait a month, announce the sale before, and then just sell it? What did he gain by doing it quickly?

[sriracha john]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway?

Thaksin was and the dissolution of the TRT for rigging the election is confirmation of that.