Thaksin Admits His Divorce Was Politically Motivated

[sriracha john]

Thaksin comes clean on divorce

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has accepted for the first time that his divorce was politically motivated. He said on his Facebook webpage that he divorced his wife Potjaman at the Thai consulate in Hong Kong in November last year to protect his family.

"I wish to answer one question which worries me, and that is why my status still shows me as married. This is because in my heart I still feel married and only divorced to save my wife and her family the shame and trials of actions against myself. I hope to try and find more time soon," he wrote on his Facebook page.

Thaksin also talks and tweets to die-hard fans via Thaksinlive.com and at his Twitter page as well. His Twitter now has 13,359 followers, including his daughters Pinthongta and Paethongtarn. "I'm so glad that a lot of people are following my Twitter. I don't know how to thank all of you, but I will tell you something fun in the

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/2205...lean-on-divorce

-- Bangkok Post 2009-08-15

Edited August 14, 2009 by sriracha john

[Artisi]

Oh, what a surprise!

[cdnvic]

This type of thing isn't uncommon at all in Asia. During Mao's rule in China it was widespread as anyone falling into disfavour would divorce in order to protect the rest of their family.

[dumbnewbie]

What do the dash-lines mean? I can't see how many people have viewed this post, or how many have replied...

[Ricardo]

This is because in my heart I still feel married and only divorced to save my wife and her family the shame and trials of actions against myself.

Pity he didn't feel the same way before he committed the crimes themselves. Can't do the time, or face the shame, then don't do the crimes in the first place !

Cue for multiple posts claiming that he's totally innocent, which is why he's on-the-run, to avoid his day in court ... erm ... thereby avoiding any more shame for his former wife & family.

[dale8]

Hello, this is a surprising slice of the truth and out of character from Mr.Thaksin. Maybe he was out to capture more sympathy so he looks like a hero to his followers, but he still has his freedom for now.

[Lancelot]

If we get to vote, I'll cast mine for the "Divorce for Political Considerations" options.

Like 'em or not, the Thaksins built up a formidable empire/power base and I can't see a few problems busting up that relationship ever

[frodo]

(sriracha john @ 2009-08-15 06:45:14) This is because in my heart I still feel married and only divorced to save my wife and her family the shame and trials of actions against myself.

Maybe it should actually read, "This is because in my heart I still feel married and only divorced to save my wife and her family the shame and trials of actions that I brought upon myself.

With Pojaman out of the way, I wonder how he and Saranrat are getting along?

[jalansanitwong]

I am overcome with joy and happiness for him and his adorable selfless family. Charming people.

[animatic]

He's worried about how some, especially women,

see him as having dumped the wife when she got disagreeable...

So now he is positioning himself as the

Family Values Dictator

He's now so warm and fuzzy,

like refrigerator mold on last months potato salad.

Edited August 15, 2009 by animatic

[Jingthing]

Thaksin also talks and tweets to die-hard fans via Thaksinlive.com and at his Twitter page as well.

How does he know that most of them are die-hard fans which implies supporters? Obviously, they are not. It is open to ANYONE.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Jingthing

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Hello, this is a surprising slice of the truth and out of character from Mr.Thaksin. Maybe he was out to capture more sympathy so he looks like a hero to his followers, but he still has his freedom for now.

Maybe his meds kicked in.

[ovenman]

"This is because in my heart I still feel married and only divorced to save my wife and her family the shame and trials of actions against myself. I hope to try and find more time soon," he wrote on his Facebook page.

If a divorce somehow saves his wife and "[her] family the shame and trials of actions against [him]" in some people's eyes, then this is one of those Asian values things that I'm just never gonna understand.

[mrtoad]

Where are all his supporters on this thread?

[Jingthing]

13,359 followers

With a significant percentage surely just train wreck watchers.

That's pretty lame.

He's definitely a D LIST despot!

Edited August 15, 2009 by Jingthing

[mca]

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has accepted for the first time that his divorce was politically motivated.

Looking at the state of his missus if it was me it'd be visually motivated.

[animatic]

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has accepted for the first time that his divorce was politically motivated.

Looking at the state of his missus if it was me it'd be visually motivated.

Now, now, perpetual bad hair days should not be a reason for divorce.

Trying to save HER half the family fortune would be....

Wanting to save her the 'TRIALS'.... how big a Freudian slip is THIS one..

LOL

[animatic]

Wit Waltman.

D List Despot... great line!

[Ferwert]

Where are all his supporters on this thread?

Here I am Mr. Toad

Thank you for asking.

This article is merely a statement of fact. Mr. Thaksin clarifying his marital status. I can understand why he would do that, considering the political climate surrounding his judicial standing. A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

Nothing more to comment or inform you about other than that. Besides, I have discussed this with the board in some of my other postings already.

If I have something of substance to add, I would do so.

I post articulate, professional and knowledgable (sp?) commentary, as opposed to this stream of inane comments from Thaksin haters. They are perceived for what they are, nothing more.

My primary audience and communication partners on this board are legitimate and thoughtful political commentators, which differentiates them from those who have little of substance to talk about, other than perpetual hate dialogue. For those posters with thoughtful and informative posts, I have the utmost respect. They are what makes this board fun, and those are the people I have in mind when posting.

Moderator Mario has repeatedly made some excellent points regarding a suggested MO when posting (either on this thread or another one. I dont remember) Heeding his outline would help to elevate discourse above shallow and bombastic statements of vitriol, devoid of substance.

There is a saying that goes like this, "Sometimes I think and write, and sometimes I just write". .............................If the shoe fits..........

Edited August 15, 2009 by Ferwert

[Jingthing]

Ferwert: A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

I need to call you on this big lie, yet again. Calling the red shirts pro democracy is good for your propaganda effort but that does not make it fact. The fact is the red shirts are pro Thaksin, not pro democracy. How can a faction be pro democracy when they blindly support a man who when he was in power went on record to state that democracy was NOT his goal?

To be clear, this is a complex situation. The red shirts do have a legitimate argument that at one time Thaksin was the democratic choice of the Thai people (give or take the vote buying). Maybe he still is, maybe he isn't, it would certainly be closer now. That is used as a cover for the pro democracy lie. If you believe in a democratic method to elect an autocratic leader, that is just not being pro democracy, that is being for whatever it takes to get your dear leader installed. Black Songkran. Was that a democratic method?

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

Edited August 15, 2009 by Jingthing

[slapout]

mr. ferwart, if you repeat the same old line someone may eventually believe it but the converts/believers seem to be few and far between. You seem to be a believer in yours and others with a like cause, but please remember the old home folk saying, "you can lie to some of the people part of the time and all of the people all of the time, then the falsehoods leap up and bite you in the a..., while the minions call for justice for all"

[Chunkton]

Ferwert: A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

I need to call you on this big lie, yet again. Calling the red shirts pro democracy is good for your propaganda effort but that does not make it fact. The fact is the red shirts are pro Thaksin, not pro democracy. How can a faction be pro democracy when they blindly support a man who when he was in power went on record to state that democracy was NOT his goal?

To be clear, this is a complex situation. The red shirts do have a legitimate argument that at one time Thaksin was the democratic choice of the Thai people (give or take the vote buying). Maybe he still is, maybe he isn't, it would certainly be closer now. That is used as a cover for the pro democracy lie. If you believe in a democratic method to elect an autocratic leader, that is just not being pro democracy, that is being for whatever it takes to get your dear leader installed. Black Songkran. Was that a democratic method?

Now correct me if I am wrong here (but I'm not), but did not the founding fathers in the US choose a Republic as the system of government after outright rejecting the notion of democracy as being a failed system? Is the term democracy even mentioned in the constitution?

So Taksin did not have democracy as his goal, nor did the founders of the USA. Does that mean they were all evil despots or does it mean that they just thought democracy demonstrably didn't work?

[lannarebirth]

Ferwert: A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

I need to call you on this big lie, yet again. Calling the red shirts pro democracy is good for your propaganda effort but that does not make it fact. The fact is the red shirts are pro Thaksin, not pro democracy. How can a faction be pro democracy when they blindly support a man who when he was in power went on record to state that democracy was NOT his goal?

To be clear, this is a complex situation. The red shirts do have a legitimate argument that at one time Thaksin was the democratic choice of the Thai people (give or take the vote buying). Maybe he still is, maybe he isn't, it would certainly be closer now. That is used as a cover for the pro democracy lie. If you believe in a democratic method to elect an autocratic leader, that is just not being pro democracy, that is being for whatever it takes to get your dear leader installed. Black Songkran. Was that a democratic method?

Now correct me if I am wrong here (but I'm not), but did not the founding fathers in the US choose a Republic as the system of government after outright rejecting the notion of democracy as being a failed system? Is the term democracy even mentioned in the constitution?

So Taksin did not have democracy as his goal, nor did the founders of the USA. Does that mean they were all evil despots or does it mean that they just thought democracy demonstrably didn't work?

That would be a good argument if one ignored "states rights" which made the US national government pretty weak. Thailand on the other hand has a centralized government.

[fred2007]

mr. ferwart, if you repeat the same old line someone may eventually believe it but the converts/believers seem to be few and far between. You seem to be a believer in yours and others with a like cause, but please remember the old home folk saying, "you can lie to some of the people part of the time and all of the people all of the time, then the falsehoods leap up and bite you in the a..., while the minions call for justice for all"

well said

[Datsun240Z]

"This is because in my heart I still feel married and only divorced to save my wife and her family the shame and trials of actions against myself. I hope to try and find more time soon," he wrote on his Facebook page.

If a divorce somehow saves his wife and "[her] family the shame and trials of actions against [him]" in some people's eyes, then this is one of those Asian values things that I'm just never gonna understand.

[Jingthing]

Ferwert: A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

I need to call you on this big lie, yet again. Calling the red shirts pro democracy is good for your propaganda effort but that does not make it fact. The fact is the red shirts are pro Thaksin, not pro democracy. How can a faction be pro democracy when they blindly support a man who when he was in power went on record to state that democracy was NOT his goal?

To be clear, this is a complex situation. The red shirts do have a legitimate argument that at one time Thaksin was the democratic choice of the Thai people (give or take the vote buying). Maybe he still is, maybe he isn't, it would certainly be closer now. That is used as a cover for the pro democracy lie. If you believe in a democratic method to elect an autocratic leader, that is just not being pro democracy, that is being for whatever it takes to get your dear leader installed. Black Songkran. Was that a democratic method?

Now correct me if I am wrong here (but I'm not), but did not the founding fathers in the US choose a Republic as the system of government after outright rejecting the notion of democracy as being a failed system? Is the term democracy even mentioned in the constitution?

So Taksin did not have democracy as his goal, nor did the founders of the USA. Does that mean they were all evil despots or does it mean that they just thought democracy demonstrably didn't work?

So many points, so much attempted obfuscation.

1. The USA founders did not intend for a pure democracy. People in the USA elect representatives and those representatives are accountable to the citizens. Yet the US is still a democracy, just not a pure DIRECT democracy.

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

2. Ferwert asserted the red shirts are pro-democracy. I assert they are not if they support a leader with a track record of dictatorial tendencies. This point is of course open to debate but that's the way I see it.

3. I think I agree with you that not supporting democracy does not automatically mean a leader is an evil despot. We are, however, talking about a specific leader with a history, Thaksin.

[noahvail]

Now correct me if I am wrong here (but I'm not), but did not the founding fathers in the US choose a Republic as the system of government after outright rejecting the notion of democracy as being a failed system? Is the term democracy even mentioned in the constitution?

So Taksin did not have democracy as his goal, nor did the founders of the USA. Does that mean they were all evil despots or does it mean that they just thought democracy demonstrably didn't work?

You are correct. The Founders determined a republic was the best form of government, for the Congress.

Sadly, in recent times, the words "democracy" and "republic" have been intertwined so that "republic" has been taken on as a synonym for "democracy" which of course it is not. Now I may be wrong here, but I think the last true "democracy" was in very early Greece, more than 2,000 years ago, and only land-owning citizens were permitted to vote. In a republic, people vote directly for the person to head the Executive Branch. But for the day-to-day processes of determining how to raise money and spend it, how to enact or repeal certain laws and give power to organizations to determine how those laws will be implemented. People elect Representatives to the Congress by popular vote and then the Representatives ideally vote the way their constituents want them to vote. Wonderful in theory, but hardly in practice, at least in the US. The Third Branch, of course, is the Court System, and more specifically, the Supreme Court, which determines what meaning Congress had when enacting such a law (when adjudging a case).

Other than the definitions of Democracy and Republic, how does this relate to Thailand? Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, which is similar to England rather than the US. Different laws apply here, as well they should: it is up to the Thai people do determine constitutional issues in whatever form they please.

I for one am going to sit back and wait to see how things play out on Monday. No matter what happens, it should be an interesting day. Will there be live television coverage on Freeview?

[noahvail]

Addendum to the above: In a truly democratic process, each citizen with voting rights would vote on each of the many hundreds of bills, amendments, and so on; how could there be a debate? To say that would be unwieldy at best, would be a huge understatement. The Founders saw that coming, and chose a republican form of government.

[hansnl]

Where are all his supporters on this thread?

Here I am Mr. Toad

Thank you for asking.

This article is merely a statement of fact. Mr. Thaksin clarifying his marital status. I can understand why he would do that, considering the political climate surrounding his judicial standing. A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

Nothing more to comment or inform you about other than that. Besides, I have discussed this with the board in some of my other postings already.

If I have something of substance to add, I would do so.

I post articulate, professional and knowledgable (sp?) commentary, as opposed to this stream of inane comments from Thaksin haters. They are perceived for what they are, nothing more.

My primary audience and communication partners on this board are legitimate and thoughtful political commentators, which differentiates them from those who have little of substance to talk about, other than perpetual hate dialogue. For those posters with thoughtful and informative posts, I have the utmost respect. They are what makes this board fun, and those are the people I have in mind when posting.

Moderator Mario has repeatedly made some excellent points regarding a suggested MO when posting (either on this thread or another one. I dont remember) Heeding his outline would help to elevate discourse above shallow and bombastic statements of vitriol, devoid of substance.

There is a saying that goes like this, "Sometimes I think and write, and sometimes I just write". .............................If the shoe fits..........

Dear Ferwert:

I can only say that if Mr T would have been a European Political figure, maybe excluding the UK nowadays, he would have gone away on his own account, without any pressure to do so.

I guess a lot of the "T-haters" as you call them, have the same feeling and ideas about him.

And probably he would have been in prison for quite a longer time as the alloted 2 years.

Me, I think that your comments are maybe articulate, but most certainly not professional and knowledgable.

You put yourself on a very high pedestal and think that a lot if not most others are unsubstantial, hatemongers.

That you dare to qualify yourself as good and disqualifying others as louts tells me enough.

Me, I doubt if you are really like that, or are only playing the devils advocate.

To be so much in love with a political figure as you are, obviously, and only want to see his "good point ", without even asking yourself if maybe there might be some negative things in the man's make-up and deeds, is for me a very loud and clear sign that you are indeed,.....misguided.

Do remember, Mr Ferwert, if a man as rich as Mr T goes into politics, it most certainly is not about the money.

It is only about power, unchecked & unbridled power, and the wish to change the rules to his own liking.

Also, don't forget, that no politician can be trusted to do what he was chosen for.

Nowhere in the world!

Never follow a politician till the end, just go as far with him as your own brain tells you.

Oh, and by the way, the Thai people did vote for the party of Mr T.

Not only for Mr T

His party got less than 51% of the votes.

He was also NOT chosen as prime minister, but became one because his party was the biggest IN THE COALITION.

Edited August 15, 2009 by hansnl

[animatic]

Ferwert: A "judicial coup" as what the pro-democracy Red Shirts call it.

I need to call you on this big lie, yet again. Calling the red shirts pro democracy is good for your propaganda effort but that does not make it fact. The fact is the red shirts are pro Thaksin, not pro democracy. How can a faction be pro democracy when they blindly support a man who when he was in power went on record to state that democracy was NOT his goal?......

Now correct me if I am wrong here (but I'm not), but did not the founding fathers in the US choose a Republic as the system of government after outright rejecting the notion of democracy as being a failed system? Is the term democracy even mentioned in the constitution?

So Taksin did not have democracy as his goal, nor did the founders of the USA. Does that mean they were all evil despots or does it mean that they just thought democracy demonstrably didn't work?

That would be a good argument if one ignored "states rights" which made the US national government pretty weak. Thailand on the other hand has a centralized government.

Democracy was never considered a failed system.

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote.

You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender.

Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote;

you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax.

The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the

"most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example.

It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People"

has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times.

Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states.

And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld.

For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote.

It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote,

states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Need not SAY democracy to have it functionally embedded.

Edited August 15, 2009 by animatic