Thaksin's " Big Surprise " Still A Secret

[sriracha john]

SRJ,

Do your own research.It's not as though you don't have the time.There's plenty of evidence out there to the effect that the government states it is just providing the public with the facts, including a similar comment directly from Abhisit.

Actually, it's your research since you are the one saying that the government is a "liar" about the issue.

If you have the time to post some unreported news then you should you be able to support that assertion.

I've shown through several posts that the government makes no attempt to hide their efforts to not set a precedent with this unprecedented and disrespectful petition.

[steveromagnino]

I think they should bargain cleverly and hard to establish a middle way between national reconciliation and as far as possible neutralising Thaksin as a future political force.I agree that Thaksin must accept a measure of guilt but not to the insane extent some of his more deranged haters suggest (see message to SRJ below).It probably entails some of his assets.From the elite's point of vieew it would mean grasping the initiative rather than just reacting to events.But as I said earlier I doubt whether they have the political savvy or cunning.

Various people have already have offered numerous olive branches:

- allowing Thaksin to avoid the asset declaration issue that would have banned him for 5 years from politics back in 2002 - back then Thaksin used similar policy to try to get the electorate to lean on the judges to decide in his favour

- holding the coup while he was absent to avoid the shame of jail

- allowing him to leave the country during the trial and afterwards

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country, but suffice to say that the people that matter - the big business families, the military, the senior people of influence - nothing they could offer would be something Thaksin would take based on the decisions taken to date, unless they involve a pardon, forgiveness and returning all his cash.

Since that is not possible in a functioning democracy then Thaksin has a problem. This the driving reason to try to force a way to reject a constitution agreed to by more than 50% of the population, to try to remove a coalition government voted for by the majority and instead to try to get a pardon signed by less than 10% of the population that contradicts practise and rule of law that is supposed to be observed by 100% of the population.

But to each their own. I suppose if I was also a corrupt billionaire with no ethics and a nice track record of fraud/corruption/murder/poor parenting, short a few bob that probably genuinely believed I'd done nothing wrong and didn't want to have to face a number of additional criminal charges the moment I returned home, I guess I would probably try the same thing. I would not have chosen red though.

ee-gar kah prik mai suay.

[rixalex]

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country

Thaksin has always seen himself as a victim. And to be a victim, he needed a perpetrator. That's where the term "elite" came in. It's nice and short, rolls off the tongue nicely, and is conveniently vague - it avoids the bother of having to actually name names and provide substaniating evidence.

In essence, the "elite" refers to pretty much any Thai person who has a bit of power and influence, and who hasn't supported him. These people must be bad. They must part of this dastardly dark force that works against his every altruistic move.

[cmiuc]

Unfortunately... this is the issue of a monarchy government... mixing supposed 'democracy' in the mix..

This should be allowed and no one should stop it...its the right of the people...

If they really wanted to see if this was a real matter, is to have a vote... why are there no votings in these cases?

I thought a government is supposed to be for the people...

I've never seen such a call for someone 'who was so bad' in the first place... I never seen where they couldn't catch and prosecute someone 'who is so bad' and yet make Satelite and Diamond mines to be allowed to roam the earth...

Smells like some 'elite' classes are trying to protect their faces more then their country...

At this point, Thailand's hope is fading fast with the current ways that are happening...

[zzaa09]

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country

Thaksin has always seen himself as a victim. And to be a victim, he needed a perpetrator. That's where the term "elite" came in. It's nice and short, rolls off the tongue nicely, and is conveniently vague - it avoids the bother of having to actually name names and provide substaniating evidence.

In essence, the "elite" refers to pretty much any Thai person who has a bit of power and influence, and who hasn't supported him. These people must be bad. They must part of this dastardly dark force that works against his every altruistic move.

Even more deeply of rhetorical whimsy, the Thai elite are one and the same * regardless of their make-believe political identities and the perceived make-up. Lost amongst the debate, is the initial charges brought against Toxin Man. Nothing is ever proposed not mentioned about the more serious associated criminial activity.

[Plus]

The Consitution states simple that the King can grant pardons. It doesn't give people right to petition him for this and for that.

Have you seen the text of this petition?

Basically they want the King to help fix the economy.

It says that economy is bad, Thaksin is a capable leader, they request a pardon so that Thaksin can come back and serve as economic consultant.

>>

"We, whose names and addresses appear at the end of the petition, would like to call Your Majesty's attention to the economic grievances brought about by the coup on September 19, 2006.

"Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted from power even though he was a knowledgeable and capable leader enjoying the people's trust.

"He was forced to live in exile because of abuse of the rule of law. The people deem it unacceptable for double standards of law enforcement.

"As the last resort for people to rely on, it is our fervent hope that Your Majesty, who is just and far-sighted, will not allow your subjects to be mired by their grievances for too long by granting a royal pardon to Thaksin.

"Therefore he will once again be free to return and serve the country, at least as an economic adviser to dispel our grievances as we, the petitioners, remain confident in his capability.

"In submitting the petition, we expect to foster reconciliation although we humbly abide by Your Majesty's discretion."

[Insight]

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country

Thaksin has always seen himself as a victim. And to be a victim, he needed a perpetrator. That's where the term "elite" came in. It's nice and short, rolls off the tongue nicely, and is conveniently vague - it avoids the bother of having to actually name names and provide substaniating evidence.

In essence, the "elite" refers to pretty much any Thai person who has a bit of power and influence, and who hasn't supported him. These people must be bad. They must part of this dastardly dark force that works against his every altruistic move.

Thaksin, who was actually ousted by the Bangkok eight-to-six-struggling-on-and-pretty-fed-up-with-the-whole-silly-charade, would be a bit more appropriate.

But being labelled as "elite" does bring along a few much needed laughs. Sharing around Koo's "Songkran in blood" posts may also help.

[ballpoint]

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country

Thaksin has always seen himself as a victim. And to be a victim, he needed a perpetrator. That's where the term "elite" came in. It's nice and short, rolls off the tongue nicely, and is conveniently vague - it avoids the bother of having to actually name names and provide substaniating evidence.

In essence, the "elite" refers to pretty much any Thai person who has a bit of power and influence, and who hasn't supported him. These people must be bad. They must part of this dastardly dark force that works against his every altruistic move.

So all the people who paid a million baht for the Thailand elite card are actually running the country? No wonder they're pissed off at it being ended. Makes a good sales pitch though:

Golf membership.

Airport greeting.

Long term visa.

Run the country.

[brahmburgers]

Interesting indeed to see the actual wording of the petition. If even 1 in a thousand signers actually read it, I'd be impressed.

"He was forced to live in exile because of abuse of the rule of law. The people deem it unacceptable for double standards of law enforcement.

However, what does the 2nd of the above quoted sentences mean?

Are the petition writers admitting T abused the law? Are they saying that T broke the law and so did others within Thailand, so why should the 'others' get away with it, while their hero is persecuted?

Anyhow, despite the splitting of hairs and semantics, I think the whole petition thing will flatten out to nothing like the day after Jan 1 2000.

Remember all the hoopla leading up to Y2K? Many had us believe the sky would fall and the oceans dry up. Well, we heard about it incessently in a year-long growl of media frenzy and it thankfully went away with less than a whimper. Same for the pseudo petition which may have 700,000 actual signatures (that's the number that the petitioners intend to submit to the Royal Office on the 17th). The remaining 4,300,000 or so signatures will be conveniently sealed in cardboard boxes and loaded up somewhere else.

It will all blow over before you can say 'mai pen rai.' Regardless, T and his flock of sheep will have to keep coming up with new publicity stunts in order to keep his mug on the front pages.

[animatic]

He was forced to live in exile because of abuse of the rule of law.

How does one abuse the rule of law?

It seems in this case actually applying the law to a crime and prosecuting in a open public fashion

and then submitting the final decision and vote count to the public in full for them to read.

So using the rule of law against someone who is powerful is now an abuse?

He was not forced to do anything, he decided to self-exile, because he did not like the decisions,

and couldn't face jail time and ALSO knew other cases where pending and if he DOES NOT

make an appearance then they stall till he does, but from Jail he can't stall...

Abuse of the rule of law.. hhhmmm; tea pot, kettle, frying pan in the noggin.

The Rule Of Law by Doctor Mark Cooray

The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order.

Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago,

"The rule of law is better than that of any individual."

The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey.

Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance.

The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:

i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.

ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.

iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power.

iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent.

v. The common law methodology.

vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective.

vii. An independent judiciary.

viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive.

ix. An underlying moral basis for all law.

What can this petition be referring to??

Oh yes:

'it wasn't an unanimous decisions to convict, so this is not a real conviction.'

Of course this concept has no basis in law.

The rule of law essential takes the decisions from one mans hands and puts it in sevral;s,

and depending on the laws does it public ally.

The law he was convicted of was on the books WHILE HE WAS PM...

He wads convicted while HIS party PPP was in power.

Where was this abuse of rule of law?

I am sure this point will not be lost on the Royal House Hold Bureau secretariat.

Edited August 6, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Any signatures not submitted and verified, can be deemed to not exist.

They then just become one more talking point in the Reddening of Minds campaign.

Thing is with this submitted, will there be a visible mechanism to shuffle it aside,

AND diminish it too nearly nothing much, via the recipients sub-offices.

I imagine the 'technicalities of the rule of law' may come into play

and rule this large document nul and invalid.

Will they THEN dare to say the rule of law is abused at the receiving end.

Would seem utterly foolhardy, but they have a rep for foolhardy to live up to.

[hammered]

How does one abuse the rule of law?

Maybe by extra-judicial killings by law enforcement agents. That short circuits the process somewhat and denies the people their rights.

[Plus]

He was forced to live in exile because of abuse of the rule of law.

Maybe it means "he abused the law and was forced into exile". Hope there's no ambiguity in Thai version.

Same for the pseudo petition which may have 700,000 actual signatures (that's the number that the petitioners intend to submit to the Royal Office on the 17th). The remaining 4,300,000 or so signatures will be conveniently sealed in cardboard boxes and loaded up somewhere else.

Really? I haven't heard it yet.

Is it really the case? That's their five million signatures?

[slimdog]

How does one abuse the rule of law?

The simple answer to that is:

• To take an existing law, and use it in a way for which it was never intended
  
• To threaten an individual or organisation with legal action if charges are not brought
  
• To add charges for which you have no proof in order to get a lesser charge for which you do have proof accepted by a court of law
  

[animatic]

How does one abuse the rule of law?

The simple answer to that is:

• To take an existing law, and use it in a way for which it was never intended
  
• To threaten an individual or organisation with legal action if charges are not brought
  
• To add charges for which you have no proof in order to get a lesser charge for which you do have proof accepted by a court of law
  

• To take an existing law, and use it in a way for which it was never intended
  Which of course IS legal because that is how the law is written.
  And also why COURTS INTERPRET written law
  and have MEN make judgments as to the MEANING of the writing.
  As to interpreting INTENT, that is considered judicial activism, and is abjured typically.
  
• To threaten an individual or organisation with legal action if charges are not brought
  If an organization such as NCCC or Attorney General is not doing it's job based on statute,
  it can be sued as a judicial process, if laws exist to allow, or laws do not exist to prohibit this suit.
  Still legal.
  
• To add charges for which you have no proof in order to get a lesser charge for which you do have proof accepted by a court of law.
  It is SOP to make charges based on a majority of facts, and lesser, yet valid, charges to hold a suspect,
  until further information can be ascertained. This is often done if risk of flight is probable.
  Still legal if the lesser charge is valid.
  Greater charges don't per se get lesser charges accepted.
  A broken law is a broken law regardless of severity or potential punishment.
  Frivolous prosecutions are those that have no basis of probable cause, but are punitive as an action.
  

Thaksin was famous himself for a huge number of financially punative suits against critics,

a preponderance of which were thrown out, but cost the defendants lots of money to defend themselves ,

and INTENTIONALLY cowed others into silence rather than RISK of being put in same financial position.

THAT certainly IS abuse of the rule of law for political and financial gain.

Edited August 6, 2009 by animatic

[brahmburgers]

He was forced to live in exile because of abuse of the rule of law.

Ok, the 'he' in that sentence is obviously Mr T.

However, if it's a good translation, it doesn't articulate who or what entity abused the law.

It could be Sarah Napkin in Ugunda when she failed to yield right of way at the baboon crossing. In other words, it states a generalized 'abuse of the rule of law.' It could possibly refer to the coup leaders. Am I right or am I right?

Edited August 6, 2009 by brahmburgers

[jayboy]

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country, but suffice to say that the people that matter - the big business families, the military, the senior people of influence - nothing they could offer would be something Thaksin would take based on the decisions taken to date, unless they involve a pardon, forgiveness and returning all his cash.

Since that is not possible in a functioning democracy then Thaksin has a problem. This the driving reason to try to force a way to reject a constitution agreed to by more than 50% of the population, to try to remove a coalition government voted for by the majority and instead to try to get a pardon signed by less than 10% of the population that contradicts practise and rule of law that is supposed to be observed by 100% of the population.

The trouble is that Thaksin and the strong feelings he inspires on all sides so often tends to cloud the picture.The occasional contributions you make are always interesting but I must take issue with you on a few points.Actually on the question of the "elite" it's partly true all discussion is rather unproductive unless terms are defined.Personally I have never believed the elite (your definition is as good as any) had some Machiavellian plan to thwart Thaksin and his followers.What I do believe is that powerful sections of the ruling class have not yet come to terms with the fact that in a constitutional democracy the majority ultimately has substantial political power.In Thailand the court, aristocrats, many Sino-Thai businesses, senior bureaucrats and military officers have controlled the levers of power, wealth and influence for as long as anyone remebers.Nothing too unusual about this but Thailand has not kept up with the spirit of the age.Critically there is an alarming lack of a sense of self preservation -although I think Abhisit understands.To the hardliners it's a zero sum game in which the alternatives are a nonsensical and repressive magical mystery Siam or -in the event of defeat- some wretched Asian version of Chavez's Venezuela.I don't want either of these alternatives nor do I believe do most Thais.

In Thailand matters are additionally complicated by the disdain the urban elite holds for the rural majority, compounded now by fear as the political power of the latter has been unleashed (yes,Thaksin was a critical catalyst).The quasi fascist PAD movement, the stormtroopers for the elite, spoke of the rural majority at their rallies spoke of the rural majority in the most disgusting and racist terms.Oddly enough the language used was very reminiscent of that used by the English and the lowland Scots of the Highlanders in the early nineteenth century.

The last past of you post isn't really worthy of you and the comment on the constitution was particularly absurd.If you wish to be taken seriously (as opposed to mouthing the silliness of fat old Chinese ladies taking tea in the Dusit Thani) I would reflect very hard on that entire last paragraph.

[sriracha john]

In a related development, Jatuporn Promphan, one of the red-shirt leaders, said yesterday that more people had joined the petition drive after it was closed last Friday and that now "some 10 million people" had put their names down.

Wow, the lies some people spout...

Lie big enough and people will believe it - or atleast that the truth is atleast at the 50% mark (giving them with this latest fantasy number added in) a 5 million man count - which is in itself just pure fantasy.

Red Shirts claim 6 million names on Thaksin pardon petitions

BANGKOK, Aug 6 (TNA) - Leaders of Thailand’s United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) announced on Thursday they have gathered nearly six million names of its supporters loyal to ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra seeking a Royal Pardon for the former premier.

The latest tally of signatures collected by the so-called Red Shirts was announced by UDD key leaders Veera Musikapong, Jatuporn Prompan, and Nattawut Saikua who jointly told a news conference of the progress of its Royal Pardon petition on Thursday.

Veera said that names and documents are being verified, but the process is only half done due to massive number of signatures collected.

The key UDD leader however asserted that the group will submit the petition on August 17. About 1,500 representatives of the group will submit the petition, with 600 boxes of documents.

He added that UDD key leaders also agreed to organise gatherings in the provinces to allow those wanting to participate in the process to sign their names.

UDD leader Jatuporn noted that some prospective petitioners have been misled, being given the impression that signing the group's petition is illegal and that they might be prosecuted. The signature-collection process in the provinces is aimed at creating better understanding of the petition.

Regarding the gathering on August 17 in the capital, Veera said UDD supporters will gather at Sanam Luang beginning in the early morning before marching to submit the petition at 1 pm.

About 100,000 Thaksin supporters are expected at the event and will go home peacefully after the petition is submitted, Jatuporn said.

"If no one causes any disturbances," said the red-clad leader, "We will disperse immediately after the petition is submitted."

Nattawut accused the government of attempting to obstruct the UDD petition process after the Ministry of Interior set up a special service facilitating those who want to withdraw their names from the petition.

-- TNA 2009-08-06

[sriracha john]

The Petition: Brace yourself for an anti-climatic finale

IF YOU START telling everyone that Thaksin Shinawatra has decided to do everything possible to rock the boat because he has nothing to lose but his jail term, then you're taking a very controversial position. If you think he has decided to push for a petition to seek a royal pardon because he has run out of options, then you may be accused of being politically naive.

By getting his lieutenants to gather lots and lots of signatures to show how popular he still is, he has resorted to his now-familiar tactic: Show them the money and freebies. Don't confuse them with facts. In more ways than one, the petition is nothing but a political marketing gimmick at its very best - especially if the anti-climax finale plays itself out.

A number of pundits have in the past few days predicted a twisted ending to this ongoing political drama. And I am here to warn you against any great disappointment.

When I first heard about this new theory, I dismissed it as being too much of a well-orchestrated melodrama. But when I started checking with some "alternative" political analysts (a new breed challenging the mainstream gurus), the proposed dramatic ending of the ongoing controversy over the clemency petition for Thaksin might not be all that implausible after all.

If the plot plays out, the red shirts will keep up the tempo of the move to petition for a royal pardon until it reaches a peak in another week. They were originally supposed to submit the document to the Royal Household's Secretariat on August 7. Now the date has been postponed to August 17.

The 10-day gap will see the red shirts turn up the heat on the confrontation with the Abhisit government, to portray popular support for the ousted ex-premier.

The real goal has now shifted. Now, they realise that there are no real legal grounds for such a move. Anyone seeking royal clemency must have first served his term according to the court's verdict. Besides, such a petition can only be submitted by the convict himself or his relatives.

There has been no precedent for a self-exiled convict asking members of the public to sign a petition to seek a royal pardon even before he has admitted to his guilt, escaped to a foreign country and condemned the judicial system as being biased against him.

Thaksin and his clan members aren't even signing the petition. But he was on the phone earlier this week condemning the authorities for trying to block the process to help get him off the hook.

Doesn't he appear to be the main force behind the move? No, he says, he has nothing to do with it. It all started because "the people" want him back to run this country again.

Read very carefully between the lines now. Thaksin says he isn't the man who started the "Pardon Thaksin" movement. None of his family members or even distant relatives have signed the petition. Dates have been shifted around. Can you guess the dramatic ending to this episode?

Now, before we jump to the heart-rending, concluding scene of this high-school play, the hero/villain unexpectedly gets some support from his arch rival. Premier Abhisit's declaration that the government will do everything to block such a "clearly illegal, obviously misleading and highly divisive" move just plays into the hands of the protagonist.

The "hero on the white horse" will "ride into town" in the next few days to announce that the unprecedented and highly popular and symbolic petition will now be called off - for the sake of national unity.

The episode will end with a bang. The public will get to pick their own villains and heroes. The "show of political force" will have served its purpose. The worsening divide will deepen. Everyone will brace for the next drama, as if the previous episode had not taken place at all.

This was never supposed to be a run-of-the-mill soap opera in the first place, right?

-- The Nation 2009-08-07

[sriracha john]

REACHING OUR NEW LOW: The utter hypocrisy of the pardon petition

A WOMAN wearing a red shirt got on a crowded "hot bus" (as opposed to the air-conditioned "cool bus") in Bangkok one afternoon. She looked around and spoke up: "Anyone here signed the pardon petition for Than (The Eminence) Thaksin?"

Silence.

"You must sign the petition," said the woman, the volume of her voice rising along with the level of discomfort of the passengers who shared the bus ride with her.

"I do not care what will happen to this country; I do not give a hoot about any harm it can cause to this country or to anybody, but Than Thaksin must return," she started yelling, apparently in a state of fierce agitation. "We must bring him back," she continued. "Do you hear? We must bring him back." By now, everybody else on the bus wished they were not there.

Hush.

"Anybody having a problem with that," she asked heatedly and defiantly.

Not a word.

At that point a girl in her thirties decided to get off the bus; she had a problem with that.

Many of us, especially those who remain on the fence - not yellow, nor red - have a problem with that.

First, the legality of the petition itself is in question. At the outset, it was designed to be a petition for a royal pardon for the fugitive former prime minister. Then it metamorphosed into simply a petition or appeal for His Majesty's kindness and benevolence to be extended to the former prime minister, period.

If the latter is the intended purpose, those who initiated and launched the petition drive should understand that we are no longer living in the Sukhothai era, when King Ramkamhaeng (1279-98) hung a bell in front of a palace gate so that subjects with grievances could ring it to get his attention, and seek solutions to their problems.

Thailand was then an absolute monarchy, as much as it is now a constitutional monarchy. As such, there are provisions in the constitution that stipulate the legal boundaries of His Majesty's authority. This petition or appeal of the red shirts falls under no purview of those provisions, and therefore no action by His Majesty is legally warranted or sanctioned.

If the petition is intended to seek a royal pardon, it would be asking His Majesty to commit an illegal act. The law governing the royal pardon states clearly that a royal pardon may be granted only if and when the convict has already served his or her time for the crime committed. The former prime minister has never served a day in jail, and therefore is not legally qualified for a royal pardon.

Then there is a bigger, or rather "heavier", problem. The petition initiators and enablers claim that between 4-5 million people have "signed" the "two-page" petition - but no (supposed) signatories seem to have seen the petition or known exactly and specifically what it said.

Each petition actually contains three pages. The first page is the signed photocopy of the citizen identification card of the signatory; the second and third pages are the content of the petition with the signature of the petitioner at the bottom. One million pages of A4 paper weigh about four tonnes. If one multiplies this by three (for a three-pager), then by five (five million signers), the total weight of the petitions will be about 60 tonnes. That weight could easily cause the collapse of the Imperial Department Store Building where the D Station is housed, where the majority of these petitions are supposed to be stored.

If they are, in fact, kept elsewhere, it would be quite a task to haul the entire load together for final collection and submission. The whole affair renders a new meaning to the term a "weighty" situation. And how many DD club cards - entitling holders to a lot of freebies - handed out during the campaign were needed for this 60-tonne heap?

Morally, it is even more problematic.

The antecedent of a pardon, even in the United States - the beacon of liberal democracy, is remorse, and not entitlement. The former president Bush decided not to grant Scooter Libby a parting presidential pardon in spite of an almighty lobbying push from vice president Cheney. Bush, by his own account, was bothered by Libby's lack of repentance.

The former prime minister and his supporters claim that crimes were never committed by him, and that he was the victim of vicious political manoeuvrings by the "elite" of Thai society.

If there is no crime, let alone the lack of any compunction, why the need for a pardon? It makes no sense.

Then, the sponsors and leaders of the petition drive accused those who oppose the campaign, and those who attempt to impede it, of driving a wedge between His Majesty and his people. A serious look at the logic of this accusation is needed here.

Shouldn't the "honour" of being a wedge-driver be placed upon the initiators of this petition campaign themselves, and not on those who try to stop it? Isn't it hypocritical and self-serving that this very same group of people who condone and even encourage vicious and intemperate attacks on the monarchy are now pronouncing their reverence to the very same institution they have tried to shred, and from whom they are now trying to force an action in their favour?

Isn't this a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too - in the extreme?

Legend has it that, during the time of the Lord Buddha, Ongkulymal was a most feared manhunter who sewed around his neck the fingers of those he beheaded so he did not lose count. One day he saw the Lord Buddha, who would have been his 1,000th victim, and ran after him with the intent to kill. Despite having extremely strong muscles and possessing superhuman physical strength, Ongkulymal found it impossible to catch up with his prey. Out of desperation, he shouted, "Samana, stop! Samana, stop!"

The Lord Buddha answered, "Ongkulymal, I have stopped. It is you who have not."

Enough hatred, anger, myopic vision, selfishness and viciousness have spread through in our society. Now it is time to stop before we descend to a new low of madness.

-- The Nation 2009-08-07

[brahmburgers]

I predict the petition will end with a whimper not a howl.

Like the Y2K thing, which had nearly everyone worried that the sky was going to fall on Jan 1 2000, the petition will also be much ado about nothing. 'Nothing' in this case, reflects the fact that many more signatures are claimed than were actually signed.

I, for one, will be calmly prepared for a let-down. The hottest heads in UDD or DAAD will want to make a big fuss that splashes all over the news, but even they know down deep the monarchy won't play ball. The regular folks within UDD and DAAD are probably resigned to keep finding ways to keep T's face and shenanigans on the front page of newspapers - with the hope (more dimished as the weeks roll by) of gaining monetary reward and/or power appointments for their efforts.

[Siripon]

Khun Banyat of the Democrats predicts a similar outcome, he thinks before August 17, Thaksin will 'graciously' withdraw the petition to show his 'magnanimity', knowing of course the whole thing was illegal and impossible from the start.

A sham, like his divorce and everything else with this man.

[Koo82]

If the petition is intended to seek a royal pardon, it would be asking His Majesty to commit an illegal act. The law governing the royal pardon states clearly that a royal pardon may be granted only if and when the convict has already served his or her time for the crime committed. The former prime minister has never served a day in jail, and therefore is not legally qualified for a royal pardon.

The information I have is since Sukhothai Era, which means since the time this country was built until now, citizens who had difficulties of anything could seek Royal help and convicted criminals even with death penalty also can seek Royal Pardon directly to the King, without going through any checking. The Constitution Law allows citizen to seek Royal pardon with no condition, which means the person does not need to serve his time.

3 red leaders said anyone can sue red leaders if they can prove the submitting of petition is wrong.

If people take time to watch People Channel, people will see the red leaders showed some pictures of citizens submitted letter to the King directly when the King was young in one of his trips to villages. Police and security wanted to stop the citizens but the King said no need.

Red leaders told another story that after a trip, when the King walked back to the vehicle ready to go, citizen still ran after and said "His Majesty, I have difficulties", and the King listened right away.

I found the video to prove that anyone who has difficulties or suffers can submit petition. PAD and many other groups have done recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJrewjndNTI...feature=channel

[Koo82]

Another video. From 6th minute, Sondhi read the petition he was about to submit at night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFieQQucay8...re=channel_page

[TAWP]

Koo82>> Please tell us you recognize the difference between a person giving His Majesty a letter with his grievances and a petition to ask His Majesty to overturn a legally binding sentencing as has been decided according to the countries legal system.

The former has no rules, the latter has laws around it.

[Koo82]

But, under the law, criminals can only petition for the royal amnesty after they have served time for a certain period and expressed repentance, while Thaksin has not served any time in prison, or admitted to any wrongdoing.

Moreover, according to the law, only his family members can petition for the royal pardon.

The information I get is the person doesn't have to serve his time and still can seek Royal pardon, and the law allows the person or concerned people can submit the petition.

The main point Khun Weera wrote in the petition form is: the persons who sign have big problems in economy, politics and society after the coup 2549 until now and the only man who has proved in the past that can help them is Khun Thaksin, but Khun Thaksin is stuck in a small mistake, so they submit the petition for Khun Thaksin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2_435_vQU8...feature=channel

Edited August 7, 2009 by Koo82

[Koo82]

TAWP, see my above post. People who signed this petition are having grievances. They submit for them, not that they submit on behalf of Khun Thaksin.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Koo82

[Sao Jiang Mai]

A small mistake? Like breaking the law?

[TAWP]

Koo82>> So you have been misinformed, what is new?

Edited August 7, 2009 by TAWP

[Koo82]

A small mistake? Like breaking the law?

Is blocking 2 main airports for a week causing a loss of 210 billion Baht breaking the law? Worse violation than signing for wife to buy a land by their own money.

Or you don't know which one is big and which one is small?

Or do you say PAD has not been charged so blah blah blah....... Question is when they will charge PAD as they seem to buy time month after month. 8 months has passed. They requested PAD to report to police last month. Done. PAD went home. No court yet for a clear violation.

I admit I never read English newspaper, so I quickly did a search and found this:

"The Bank of Thailand, seen as the most neutral observer of Thai politics, said yesterday that the PAD occupation and closure of the Suvanaphum airport, according to the bank’s study, cost the country a whopping 210 billion baht. Of the 210 billion baht damaged, is about 900 million damage in service sector, 680 million baht in transportation sector, 420 million in industrial sector, and 100 million in other tourism sectors."

http://<URL Automatically Removed>/2...on-baht-damage/