Clemency Bid For Thaksin Shinawatra

[sriracha john]

Thaksin's cloying plea for clemency sounds shallow

Under the backdrop of the red-shirt rally seeking a pardon for him, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra made an emotional plea - like a closing statement for his defense. But does he have a genuine case to begin with? Or even a cause to fight for?

By using sugar-coated remarks, Thaksin portrayed himself as an undying royalist. Many see it an act of hypocrisy. The rally was billed as one of reverence, but the way it was organised was clearly an attempt to involve the monarchy in the political struggle.

For better or worse, Thaksin has shown his true colours in politicising the country's revered institution. The line has been crossed and time will reveal the consequences.

Less than two months ago, the high drama of Thaksin's plight began with the launch of a signature campaign to seek a royal pardon.

The petition was drafted to cite political injustice and double standards of law enforcement, both spawned by the 2006 coup, as grounds to seek a royal pardon for Thaksin. Some five million people reportedly signed the petition.

Leading figures and legal pundits reminded the parties concerned about the pardon process- and so campaign organisers shrewdly re-branded the petition from seeking a royal pardon to voicing the people's suffering from injustice.

Under court traditions and relevant laws, a pardon petition must be submitted by a convict or an immediate family member. But every Thai citizen is entitled to access the King to air a grievance.

By accident or design, the wording of the petition was murky from the start, simplifying the reclassification of the campaign.

If the organisers had insisted on seeking a royal pardon, then the Royal Palace might have suggested the petition be lodged with concerned authorities, such as the Justice Ministry and the Corrections Department.

At yesterday's rally, the red shirts and Thaksin highlighted their campaign to redress the people's suffering. Not a word about pardon was mentioned although the core message of the petition remained the seeking of clemency on Thaksin's behalf.

Thaksin grabbed the opportunity to equate his plight to that of the country's.

He attributed his predicament to the seizure of power in 2006, which in turn brought about the people's suffering, as warranting a petition for royal intervention to rectify the situation.

"His Majesty is the King for every Thai citizen and the only one who can redress the people's suffering," he said.

He crafted his speech to identify with the poor, showcasing his achievements in meeting the people's aspirations.

He said his success brought about his downfall because his opponents would have lost their vested interests with any advance of democracy.

Because of his ousting, the people suffered. The political system went haywire and he became a victim of reprisal, he said.

He claimed his opponents had tried to fault him for being disloyal to the monarchy, although he never wavered in his loyalty to Their Majesties. He also said the coup-triggered judicial review was unfair in convicting him.

It was a joke for the buyer and the seller to win an acquittal - while he was penalised with a two-year jail term for giving spousal consent to seal the Ratchadaphisek land transaction, he said.

He omitted to mention, however, that the sentencing was based on his wrongdoing committed as prime minister, wielding influence over the transaction.

Regardless of Thaksin's well-scripted speech, the bottom line is: Thaksin is demanding the King intervene and rectify his ill-fortune.

Even though he takes pride in his intellectual prowess, he appears to have overlooked no one can turn the clock back. He has fought and lost in the power struggle since 2006. And now he wants a rematch by invoking the monarchy to come to his rescue.

As a self-proclaimed democracy advocate, he should have realised the impropriety of seeking a royal intervention in the political and judicial process.

-- The Nation 2009-08-18

[sriracha john]

Thaksin petition sent to government for review

The Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary has forwarded the petition seeking a Royal Pardon for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to the government for a recommendation. After receiving the petition signed by up to 3.5 million people submitted by 10 members of the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary said in a statement it would ask the government to review and provide a recommendation on the petition.

"This follows the traditional norm which has been applied to all petitions," the statement said. The cabinet will meet today on the issue, said acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn. The Justice Ministry will be assigned by the government to review the petition and decide if it is appropriate.

The review will include checking if the signatures are genuine. The timeframe for the government to deal with and send back its input to the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary cannot be determined at the moment, he said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/2...govt-for-review

-- Bangkok Post 2009-08-18

[sriracha john]

Did they lose 2.1 million signatures between August 1 and August 17?

August 1:

Thaksin supporters claim 5.6m signatures

By John Le Fevre

Veera Musigapong, one of the red shirts organizers, told a gathering that some put at more than 30,000, that 5.6 million signatures had been collected from all over the country.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2911258

August 17:

Natthawut Saikua, a key UDD leader, later told the crowd 3.5 million people had signed the petition.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/2...govt-for-review

Edited August 18, 2009 by sriracha john

[animatic]

I wonder how many onions below the table it took to get him crying on cue?

As noted he has crossed the line by involving the monarchy in his political fight.

A very foolish move considering the love and esteem with which the highest positions are held.

I suspect the army was quietly letting him put his foot in it without comment.

What happens with this misstep on his next misstep remains to be seen.

Prior to the coup his level of decision making had markedly deteriorated under pressure.

This diminished level of rationality and weighing of options has not improved in his isolation.

The more sycophants you surround yourself with, the less accurate your frame of reference.

When even his wife says this is not happening and he STILL presses on, it sure raises

questions about his abilities to discern.

Edited August 18, 2009 by animatic

[Gonzo the Face]

If anything with regards to birth issues, I think I would be pro choice.

Having said that Thaksin Shinawata presents the strongest argument I could ever hear for abortion. If only his mother had realized.

This corrupt piece of meat is a Thai National Disgrace. Thai votes and love come cheap. Probably smelled onions to make the crocodile tears.

Scum Dog Billionaire. Both him and the 1 out of 44, who did a runner from yesterdays court case, both should be held up as fine examples of spoiled children who grow up without proper direction. Some fine examples they are

[brahmburgers]

to me, this is the quote of the day:

but that if I was a truly honest person, then I should be able to come back," he said.

Thaksin is to honesty what hamburger is to vegetarian.

also, it appears T doesn't have a direct phone link with the royals. Otherwise, he wouldn't be groveling so despicably in public. He really is a pathetic member of our species.

[animatic]

Maybe a sub-species,

Genus; Thaksinosaurus rukus

The old dead politician that makes a big noise.

Edited August 18, 2009 by animatic

[scorecard]

Thaksin's cloying plea for clemency sounds shallow

Under the backdrop of the red-shirt rally seeking a pardon for him, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra made an emotional plea - like a closing statement for his defense. But does he have a genuine case to begin with? Or even a cause to fight for?

By using sugar-coated remarks, Thaksin portrayed himself as an undying royalist. Many see it an act of hypocrisy. The rally was billed as one of reverence, but the way it was organised was clearly an attempt to involve the monarchy in the political struggle.

For better or worse, Thaksin has shown his true colours in politicising the country's revered institution. The line has been crossed and time will reveal the consequences.

Less than two months ago, the high drama of Thaksin's plight began with the launch of a signature campaign to seek a royal pardon.

The petition was drafted to cite political injustice and double standards of law enforcement, both spawned by the 2006 coup, as grounds to seek a royal pardon for Thaksin. Some five million people reportedly signed the petition.

Leading figures and legal pundits reminded the parties concerned about the pardon process- and so campaign organisers shrewdly re-branded the petition from seeking a royal pardon to voicing the people's suffering from injustice.

Under court traditions and relevant laws, a pardon petition must be submitted by a convict or an immediate family member. But every Thai citizen is entitled to access the King to air a grievance.

By accident or design, the wording of the petition was murky from the start, simplifying the reclassification of the campaign.

If the organisers had insisted on seeking a royal pardon, then the Royal Palace might have suggested the petition be lodged with concerned authorities, such as the Justice Ministry and the Corrections Department.

At yesterday's rally, the red shirts and Thaksin highlighted their campaign to redress the people's suffering. Not a word about pardon was mentioned although the core message of the petition remained the seeking of clemency on Thaksin's behalf.

Thaksin grabbed the opportunity to equate his plight to that of the country's.

He attributed his predicament to the seizure of power in 2006, which in turn brought about the people's suffering, as warranting a petition for royal intervention to rectify the situation.

"His Majesty is the King for every Thai citizen and the only one who can redress the people's suffering," he said.

He crafted his speech to identify with the poor, showcasing his achievements in meeting the people's aspirations.

He said his success brought about his downfall because his opponents would have lost their vested interests with any advance of democracy.

Because of his ousting, the people suffered. The political system went haywire and he became a victim of reprisal, he said.

He claimed his opponents had tried to fault him for being disloyal to the monarchy, although he never wavered in his loyalty to Their Majesties. He also said the coup-triggered judicial review was unfair in convicting him.

It was a joke for the buyer and the seller to win an acquittal - while he was penalised with a two-year jail term for giving spousal consent to seal the Ratchadaphisek land transaction, he said.

He omitted to mention, however, that the sentencing was based on his wrongdoing committed as prime minister, wielding influence over the transaction.

Regardless of Thaksin's well-scripted speech, the bottom line is: Thaksin is demanding the King intervene and rectify his ill-fortune.

Even though he takes pride in his intellectual prowess, he appears to have overlooked no one can turn the clock back. He has fought and lost in the power struggle since 2006. And now he wants a rematch by invoking the monarchy to come to his rescue.

As a self-proclaimed democracy advocate, he should have realised the impropriety of seeking a royal intervention in the political and judicial process.

-- The Nation 2009-08-18

QUOTE from above: ".....At yesterday's rally, the red shirts and Thaksin highlighted their campaign to redress the people's suffering. Not a word about pardon was mentioned although the core message of the petition remained the seeking of clemency on Thaksin's behalf.

Thaksin grabbed the opportunity to equate his plight to that of the country's.

He attributed his predicament to the seizure of power in 2006, which in turn brought about the people's suffering, as warranting a petition for royal intervention to rectify the situation.

"His Majesty is the King for every Thai citizen and the only one who can redress the people's suffering," he said. ...."

T is really a nasty and dangerous manipulator.

Would you buy a used car from this man?

[Lite Beer]

Posts containing references to HRH have been deleted as per forum rules.

[frodo]

Minister: Petition will be strictly vetted

If the petition for a royal pardon for fugitive politican Thaksin Shinawatra fails to meet legal criteria the process will go no further, Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga said on Tuesday.

The anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) submitted the petition to the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary on Monday.

The petition, together with about 3.5 million signatures contained in more than 500 boxes, had been forwarded to the Justice Ministry for review, he said.

What happened to the alleged 6.5 million signatures that was earlier stated? That is one hel_l of a drop.

Source: Bangkok Post

[TAWP]

Did they lose 2.1 million signatures between August 1 and August 17?

August 1:

Thaksin supporters claim 5.6m signatures

By John Le Fevre

Veera Musigapong, one of the red shirts organizers, told a gathering that some put at more than 30,000, that 5.6 million signatures had been collected from all over the country.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2911258

August 17:

Natthawut Saikua, a key UDD leader, later told the crowd 3.5 million people had signed the petition.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/2...govt-for-review

Let's not forget the number 10 million that was aired by some of the loonies...

[brahmburgers]

Maybe their number counters are related to the woman who took my 'check bin' after breakfast at her restaurant. The bill was 80 baht. I gave her 1,000 baht bill. She reached for her calculator. I cheerily challenged her to try to figure the change in her head. She may not have understood my broken Thai, but she nevertheless steadfastly focused on her calculator to come up with the correct number for change.

Edited August 18, 2009 by brahmburgers

[CarlYaz]

Shawn W Crispin, Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor, has additional points on why the petition is doomed to failure and additional why A desperate plea for amnesty is crucial to the red shirts in an article there.

[steveromagnino]

Shawn W Crispin, Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor, has additional points on why the petition is doomed to failure and additional why A desperate plea for amnesty is crucial to the red shirts in an article there.

mostly don't agree with Shawn but always appreciate his attention to detail and thought process - in this case I think he is mostly on track.

[jayboy]

Shawn W Crispin, Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor, has additional points on why the petition is doomed to failure and additional why A desperate plea for amnesty is crucial to the red shirts in an article there.

mostly don't agree with Shawn but always appreciate his attention to detail and thought process - in this case I think he is mostly on track.

I don't agree at all - one of his weaker efforts, with objective reporting and value judgements all mixed up.Still interesting reading I agree.

For another perspective see Chang Noi's latest piece, referenced over at BP.

[Plus]

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

[jayboy]

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

All true or at least mostly true perhaps as even Chang Noi would probably concede.However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

[hammered]

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

All true or at least mostly true perhaps as even Chang Noi would probably concede.However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

Now that is the same the world over.... to some extent or other usually experessed as one rule for the rich and one for the rest. Thailand comes of age

[jayboy]

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

All true or at least mostly true perhaps as even Chang Noi would probably concede.However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

Now that is the same the world over.... to some extent or other usually experessed as one rule for the rich and one for the rest. Thailand comes of age

But in the rest of the world there is almost always a safety valve (even if as in China it's a very smart politbureau actively reforming from within).In Thailand there's almost none and compounded with the elite's arrogance and overwhelming sense of entitlement is why the situation is potentially dangerous.

[hammered]

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

All true or at least mostly true perhaps as even Chang Noi would probably concede.However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

Now that is the same the world over.... to some extent or other usually experessed as one rule for the rich and one for the rest. Thailand comes of age

But in the rest of the world there is almost always a safety valve (even if as in China it's a very smart politbureau actively reforming from within).In Thailand there's almost none and compounded with the elite's arrogance and overwhelming sense of entitlement is why the situation is potentially dangerous.

I was trying to inject some humour

[jayboy]

I was trying to inject some humour

Ah, I get it now!

Interesting that The Nation couldn't apparently find room for Chang Noi's latest piece though to be fair the policy has been been surprisingly liberal for some time.

[Plus]

..However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

Understandable, but the problem with this petition is its stupidity, not the source.

Those "non-elites" might feel snubbed but if they want to participate with "elites" on equal basis they should get over these childish emotions and come up with something worth considering.

It's not "elites" fault that they came up with this mangled pardon morphing into petition to address grievances and also appoint Thaksin as economic advisor.

I mean - what kind of nonsense is this remark? What if the govt doesn't feel like giving Thaksin any role at all even if he gets pardoned? Reds are not asking the King to appoint him personally, and it is consitutionally impossible. How those grievances will be addressed then?

I repeat - it's not elites fault that the petition flawed. That kind of reasoning is only a pretext for creating more tensions along those imaginary dividing lines.

[teetersb]

There is a new article in The Nation titled "Thaksin banished from Dubai, fleeing to Montenegro: Thepthai" and I thought maybe George, or one of the more senior members could put it up.

This is Great News!!

[Plus]

Interesting that The Nation couldn't apparently find room for Chang Noi's latest piece

Oh, now I see what you mean - I read about in BP blog.

Chang Noi was in the paper edition as usual.