Thaivisa has all the background you need, it was a long time ago, though.

Some of the proceeds were used for the sponsorship, I believe it was "one Tamboon one suicidal student" project where young children were torn from their families and send somewhere really cold like Russia where no one could speak either English or Thai. The program was largely successful, as about half of the convicts were released before their due time and I believe all of them would never ever think about going abroad or taking government money again.

Catch them while they're young, as they say.

I'm not Thai but as just an observer, I get really sick of watching corrupt politicians point the finger at their equally corrupt political enemies. If they were to change their priorities and and work for the good of the country rather than witch hunt, things could improve quickly. The constant bickering and nit picking reminds me of a group of children.

"Despite the fact that [the two-and three-digit lottery scheme] was a good and useful state policy, it was not allowed by law," the court said.

Yes, it was just as serious as when the juidciary convicted Samak of having a cooking show (BTW abhist has his own show which is pure self-promotion, but that is different..I guess ).

The genius's at the ASC who brought these charges are stridently against any lotteries as they consider them a sin- it is one of PADS platforms.

And for those who are unaware- which is possible since the Nation seems to never mention it- The ASC is peopled by PAD.

Banjerd Singkaneti (Thai: บรรเจิด สิงคะเนติ) is Assistant Professor of Law at Thammasat University and was a noted critic of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Education and early career

Criticism of Thaksin Shinawatra

Banjerd was a leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, a group active in 2006 in attempting to bring down the government of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.[2] He famously criticized Thaksin as being worse than Adolf Hitler.

“ What makes Mr. Thaksin different from Adolf Hitler was that Hitler did not do things for his own benefit. Hitler killed Jews but he did several things for his country. He was more useful for the country than Mr Thaksin was. ”

The Embassy of Israel protested in a letter to the Bangkok Post, the English-language newspaper which had published Banjerd's statement.

After the coup

After the Thai military overthrew the government of Thaksin in a coup, the junta appointed Banjerd to the Asset Exemination Committee investigating corruption allegations against Thaksin and to the Constitution Drafting Committee drafting a new permanent constitution.

During the drafting process, he rejected western-style democracy in favor of traditional social customs. “I personally believe in social structure and administration through traditions and customs that we once had in small communities. It’s more real than western-style democracy because people rule by themselves.

The difference is

Samak was paid to talk politics while cooking while he was PM.

Not report to the public as PM.

So the private production company had an interest to keep Samak happy,

or potentially lose their OTHER bookings. Hence a conflict of interests basis.

Abhisit talks about the doings of the PM's office and the government,

and takes no money, it is channel produced, not production company produced,

no pretense of it being something other than what it is either;

A report from the PM about what's happening.

These may seem to be nit picking distinctions to some,

but under law they are considerably different.

Let's also not forget Samak presented false documentation to the court and got caught,

and perjured himself verbally to boot. Saying the money was going to his chauffeur....

He said that his lawyers told him that he shouldn't continue the show as it was risky,

but he didn't believe it was seriously an issue.

In other words he was totally arrogant as only a self important puyai can be.

Even if Thaksin were to finagle from a parliament some form of forgiveness or annullment of his conviction, the courts continue to be honed in on him and if necessary would convict Thaksin anew of criminal charges. So, no matter whether or how Thaksin might sqirm out of being convicted of violating criminal law, the courts appear determined to keep Thaksin in his current state of being convicted of violating criminal law, one criminal law or another criminal law. There are a lifetime of criminal laws the courts can use.

The only question might be whose lifetime?

Exactly.

I can't wait for the decisions on the airport cases. This was a license to steal. In fact, the same construction company was used over and over, but I am sure we won't see their name in any of this. So much money spread around, so many allegedly involved, but I suspect the guilty will come down to only one individual.

So much money spread around, so many allegedly involved, but I suspect the guilty will come down to only one individual.

Yes, most likely, and that is why this whole thing is a farce. This is not about due process under the law, but the law used as a political tool.

So much money spread around, so many allegedly involved, but I suspect the guilty will come down to only one individual.

Yes, most likely, and that is why this whole thing is a farce. This is not about due process under the law, but the law used as a political tool.

You again! Hi.

Correctly stated, due process under TiT law.

You know I've made the argument that Thaialnd suffers from the two wrongs don't make a right principle which is as old as time itself. Thai laws and institutions have been so distorted and for so long by TiT politics but especially jurisprudence that the whole of Thai civilization and each of its parts have become completely twisted and mangled to the point they are beyond recovery.

It might at the least be poetic justice that Dr. Thaksin is the current poster boy of the TiT syndrome.

"The court suspended decisions on Thaksin, because he remains a fugitive after being convicted in another case."

- Nation newspaper report

That decision appears more of a wimp-out than a legal decision. Let's say I was convicted of robbing a bank, and I fled the country. If, later, I was implicated in a case of rape, would the jurists 'suspend the decision' to convict and/or sentence me on the second charge because split the country, or 'remained a fugitive' ? Of course not.

Has the court ever heard of "convicted in absentia" ??? a mere mortal could be found guilty in absentia, but Thaksin has become like some giant boogie man, and even the Supremes are spooked by his shadow.

I still see it on Bangkokpost. Not much of a jail sentance. Also why can't they tell us where the money went? It obviously got diverted off somewhere?

The money went mostly to big shots in tambons which voted most strongly for T. Some of it also went to assist those same TRT-loving tambons. However, Thaksin and his people orchestrated the give-aways to make it appear it was T's own money - as if he was mega-generous. That's a big reason why he is still seen as a savior to some.

So much money spread around, so many allegedly involved, but I suspect the guilty will come down to only one individual.

Yes, most likely, and that is why this whole thing is a farce. This is not about due process under the law, but the law used as a political tool.

You again! Hi.

Correctly stated, due process under TiT law.

You know I've made the argument that Thaialnd suffers from the two wrongs don't make a right principle which is as old as time itself. Thai laws and institutions have been so distorted and for so long by TiT politics but especially jurisprudence that the whole of Thai civilization and each of its parts have become completely twisted and mangled to the point they are beyond recovery.

It might at the least be poetic justice that Dr. Thaksin is the current poster boy of the TiT syndrome.

The problem now, and for the considerable future, is that Thaksin has been made a martyr in the eyes of his many supporters, a position he does not deserve. If a system is beyond recovery (and i am afraid that you are right in this point), then frightening possibilities jump to mind. For all my criticism - i do not enjoy revolutions. Especially when a faulty character such as Thaksin becomes its symbol.

Each such "conviction" makes Thaksin more powerful.

So much money spread around, so many allegedly involved, but I suspect the guilty will come down to only one individual.

Yes, most likely, and that is why this whole thing is a farce. This is not about due process under the law, but the law used as a political tool.

You again! Hi.

Correctly stated, due process under TiT law.

You know I've made the argument that Thaialnd suffers from the two wrongs don't make a right principle which is as old as time itself. Thai laws and institutions have been so distorted and for so long by TiT politics but especially jurisprudence that the whole of Thai civilization and each of its parts have become completely twisted and mangled to the point they are beyond recovery.

It might at the least be poetic justice that Dr. Thaksin is the current poster boy of the TiT syndrome.

The problem now, and for the considerable future, is that Thaksin has been made a martyr in the eyes of his many supporters, a position he does not deserve. If a system is beyond recovery (and i am afraid that you are right in this point), then frightening possibilities jump to mind. For all my criticism - i do not enjoy revolutions. Especially when a faulty character such as Thaksin becomes its symbol.

Each such "conviction" makes Thaksin more powerful.

All that's needed is one conviction. Any successive convictions are only a possibility and would be predicated on necessity if Thaksin were to finagle his way out of the present single conviction. The scenario you present of piling on convictions is, whether in a succession of single convictions or done in one heap, conditional at best and to say the least unlikely.

Your principle is well taken but it's also true that Thais haven't anything that pertains to martyrs or martyrdom in their culture, traditions or customs--not to mention religion per se. Modern Thailand is about money rather than martyrs.

The Thaksin Organized Crime Family is in a steep descent anyway and already has become largely irrelevant. The discussion now is becoming focused on Abhisit, Chalerm, Newin, the army etc.

Your principle is well taken but it's also true that Thais haven't anything that pertains to martyrs or martyrdom in their culture, traditions or customs--not to mention religion per se. Modern Thailand is about money rather than martyrs.

And there i think you are wrong. Martyrs are well alive in Thailand. Names such as Pridi or Chit Phumisak are still heard and talked about, and increasingly so.

And as to the importance of money - ideology is more important. On the hand hand the state ideology - Chat, Sassana, Pra Mahakasat, and on the other hand the new ideologies represented by the Red Shirts: a modernisation of the Thai state, often cited as an example is Japan, viewed as direct confrontation by the army, which sees itself as the sole protector of the state and its ideology.

Your principle is well taken but it's also true that Thais haven't anything that pertains to martyrs or martyrdom in their culture, traditions or customs--not to mention religion per se. Modern Thailand is about money rather than martyrs.

And there i think you are wrong. Martyrs are well alive in Thailand. Names such as Pridi or Chit Phumisak are still heard and talked about, and increasingly so.

And as to the importance of money - ideology is more important. On the hand hand the state ideology - Chat, Sassana, Pra Mahakasat, and on the other hand the new ideologies represented by the Red Shirts: a modernisation of the Thai state, often cited as an example is Japan, viewed as direct confrontation by the army, which sees itself as the sole protector of the state and its ideology.

Ideology is a brain disease.

One needs to be more discerning about legends also.

If Thailand has anything it is a philosophy, which is the classic Thai Trilogy that we well know: monarchy, nation, religion. The Thai Trilogy occurred naturally whereas ideology is consciously conceived before the natural course of events can occur. Ask Marx or Lenin or Hitler or Thaksin, or any number of grandiose, dogmatic and spectacular failures.

In Thaksin's case, his brain disease/ideology began in his wallet and spread to his psyche to manifest as meglomania compounded by money.

The bottom line is:- The underground lottery is still alive and very healthy be it just as corrupt. Instead of the high fliers getting the cream it's going to the officials at a local level. Exactly where it was 5 odd years ago. AND the villagers don't give a toss who runs it so long as they can have a dabble.

ASK THE EDITOR

Why did court spare the Cabinet?

By Tulsathit Taptim

Published on October 2, 2009

Again, the Supreme Court has raised public eyebrows. The ruling on the "on-land" lottery controversy took some heat off members of the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee, who had seen their hard work on the rubber-sapling case virtually thrown out last week, but it left a trail of hard questions.

Why was most of the Thaksin Cabinet, which introduced the on-land lottery (proclaimed as a scheme to weed out the underground lottery) spared by the court?

The ruling made it clear that the on-land lottery project was wrongly approved and implemented. It was not a kind of "charity" lottery, the court said, because charity lotteries are legally allowed for specific purposes with strict rules on where the money goes and the lottery's short, temporary life span. The way the Thaksin government spent the money and kept the on-land lottery virtually permanently on the market belied the claim it was for charity.

If it was a Cabinet mistake, why wasn't the entire Cabinet held responsible?

The court said Deputy Finance Minister Varathep Rattanakorn, one of the only three defendants who were found guilty, proposed the lottery scheme to the Cabinet as a special agenda item, giving the other Cabinet members no time to review the plan. While reading the verdict, the court mentioned that Thaksin had summoned senior officials involved and given them instructions to speed up the lottery scheme.

Were the grounds for leaving the other Cabinet members off the hook solid?

Let's put it this way. We all know how the Thaksin Cabinet worked and the court can argue that a blanket verdict would be unfair. Moreover, if we look at the ruling between its lines, the court seemed to suggest it was a case of Thaksin manipulating an "urgent" item on the Cabinet agenda.

But if we look at the issue of common accountability, this is what weakened the court's sympathy for the other Cabinet members. No "urgent" item shall be too urgent for any Cabinet, who were given a public and constitutional trust to make sound decisions in such circumstances.

The argument that the lottery scheme was rushed through, giving the other Cabinet members no time, begged the question why none of them had the courage to say: "Wait. This is controversial. Why not give us a week to study all its details and pros and cons?"

Surely, the court's verdict saved some truly innocent Cabinet members, but it also meant several others were simply lucky. If the court ruling was meant to send a warning to future governments, apparently the message is not strong enough.

-- The Nation 2009/10/02

If Thailand has anything it is a philosophy, which is the classic Thai Trilogy that we well know: monarchy, nation, religion. The Thai Trilogy occurred naturally whereas ideology is consciously conceived before the natural course of events can occur.

Wrong.

Legend may tell you that the three pillars occurred "naturally", yet it was clearly conceived by Rama VI and his advisers during his drive towards Thai nationalism and restructuring of Siam. He also put down a few revolts in Isaarn as well.

Maybe he meant naturally in a sense that all pillars were already there.

Red ideology is clearly an invention. I don't even know what red ideology is, it has never been clearly formulated, and, of course, they swing from one extreme to another in a space of few months.

My opinion is that they don't have any ideology, they just want to save Thaksin by any means necessary. Ideology for them is another tool to keep fans interested, is just phone ins or printing newspapers. If they do indeed stand for something, they have no idea what it is. They are like immature children - there's a lot of growing up to do before their ideas will be taken seriously by the society.

Maybe he meant naturally in a sense that all pillars were already there.

Red ideology is clearly an invention. I don't even know what red ideology is, it has never been clearly formulated, and, of course, they swing from one extreme to another in a space of few months.

My opinion is that they don't have any ideology, they just want to save Thaksin by any means necessary. Ideology for them is another tool to keep fans interested, is just phone ins or printing newspapers. If they do indeed stand for something, they have no idea what it is. They are like immature children - there's a lot of growing up to do before their ideas will be taken seriously by the society.

That is how far opinions go...

Nevertheless there is a clear Red Shirt ideology, which you can read/hear about in their publications and other media outlets. Their mainstream ideology advocates a transformation into a system of a clear cut constitutional monarchy, citing the example of Japan. Furthermore they want to restrict the powers of the military, bureaucracy and the privy council, move away from the system of patronage into a system of equal opportunities. Of course you have fringe groups there that advocate republicanism for Thailand, but this has not majority support.

As to the three pillar issue, no this has not been always there. This ideology was a radical change from the previous feudal system into absolute monarchy, which began with King Chulalongkorn.

Their mainstream ideology advocates a transformation into a system of a clear cut constitutional monarchy, citing the example of Japan. Furthermore they want to restrict the powers of the military, bureaucracy and the privy council...

Well, it's nonsense. On paper Thailand already meets all their demands, and in real life powerful people and institutions will always have extra weight and their opinions will always be heeded by others.

Not to mention that their political party is choke full of nominees and proxies and invisible hands behind legal member of parliament and the ministers, they should be the last ones preaching about transparency in power distribution.

Do you see my point why no one takes them seriously?

Maybe he meant naturally in a sense that all pillars were already there.

Red ideology is clearly an invention. I don't even know what red ideology is, it has never been clearly formulated, and, of course, they swing from one extreme to another in a space of few months.

My opinion is that they don't have any ideology, they just want to save Thaksin by any means necessary. Ideology for them is another tool to keep fans interested, is just phone ins or printing newspapers. If they do indeed stand for something, they have no idea what it is. They are like immature children - there's a lot of growing up to do before their ideas will be taken seriously by the society.

That is how far opinions go...

Nevertheless there is a clear Red Shirt ideology, which you can read/hear about in their publications and other media outlets. Their mainstream ideology advocates a transformation into a system of a clear cut constitutional monarchy, citing the example of Japan. Furthermore they want to restrict the powers of the military, bureaucracy and the privy council, move away from the system of patronage into a system of equal opportunities. Of course you have fringe groups there that advocate republicanism for Thailand, but this has not majority support.

As to the three pillar issue, no this has not been always there. This ideology was a radical change from the previous feudal system into absolute monarchy, which began with King Chulalongkorn.

Of course nothing has "been always there." It evolves. At a certain point the evolution of any society, its culture and institutions, its mores, customs and traditions become identifiable as a coherent whole, at which point one can define the people and their place--their philosophy.

The Red Shirts are nothing more than another ideological group, as were the Brown Shirts and the Black Shirts etc which are attempting to impose their own ideations on the country. Ideations as philosophy are one thing, ideations as ideology are quite another. That is, philosophy expresses a grand design determined naturally by evolution: Ideology presents specific preconceived demands which typically and almost always need to be imposed and enforced.

I reiterate that ideology is a brain disease and I have cited historical examples which are self evident and self explanatory. More specifically, The UK and Thailand have evolved: the PRC and Russia have slashed and marched. I prefer the former.

Thailand would be a more peaceful and stable place without any brain diseases such as Red Shirt ideology infecting it. And how many Red Shirts know this supposed ideology anyway? Not many as they prefer that the Thaksin Organized Crime Family control the government's budget and nothing more.

After the rubber sapling case it was speculated this one would go a similar route. It hasnt.

On the contrary. It has. Suspended sentences and a fine for a week's lunch money. The cost of an attorney for a day would be more than they got fined, so no need for an appeal here. Note, Thaksin's case was suspended until he returns.

Do you think that he ever will return Old Man? Can't see it myself.

Cheers, Rick

Rick, I do think he will return. I don't think it will be in a position of power though and I don't think it will be anytime soon (hopefully) as I suspect it will be after the event occurs that we can't really discuss.

Perhaps Mr. Thaksin he trying to emulate or take a leaf out of Ronny Biggs book, but on a bigger scale

The Great Brain Robbery?

The Great Brain Robbery?

well said