If I Were Thaksin I Would Have Served My Jail Sentence

[ballpoint]

Strange that he was clever enough to rise to power, but not street wise enough to remain there. He could have easily turned the tax issue around by proclaiming "Under Thai law, the sale of my corporation was non taxable (or some other BS explanation) but in the interests of national harmony, I voluntarily remit to the treasury xxxx million baht for the education, health care.... of the Thai people." That relatively small payment could have been spun to no end, all to Thaksin's advantage.

Sometimes a little feigned humility can really pay off

Arrogance, pure and simple. It shows up the fallacy that someone good at making money would be good at running a country. Making large amounts of money for personal gain requires a certain combination of self worship, arrogance and disregard for others. A trample on anyone to get ahead mentality, and the willingness to break, or bend, laws whenever you can, which is why many of them get done for tax evasion, fraud, insider trading and other white collar crimes. These are not desirable traits in the leader of a country. A country can't be run with a disregard for its people and a business policy of keeping the majority share holders happy with trinkets while ripping off the rest. Look at that other renowned billionaire and PM, the Italian guy. Complaining that he's the most reviled person in the world. He and Thaksin could be twins, wallowing in self pity, blaming all around them while refusing to take reponsibility for their actions. In Thaksin's case, the dodgy manner in which a police captain was able to get the monopoly on selling computers to the police, followed by a further monopoly on mobile telecoms, raises even more flags. He got away with it for so long that he really believed nothing could touch him.

[Insight]

That relatively small payment could have been spun to no end, all to Thaksin's advantage.

Spot on. It would have been chicken feed to him and it would have cemented his place for a very long time. What stopped him? I think at that stage he truly felt invincible and that nobody could stop him from doing exactly as he pleased. Democracy had been brutally corrupted to the point that checks and balances simply didn't exist. Had we stayed within the framework of that corrupted democracy that he had created for himself, his arrogance would have been justified.

There's also the idea of donating some of the cash he made on the sale of AIS to charities as a form of repentance for the tax dodge, which again could of been spun repeatedly to his benefit.

He's not the saviour of the poor, he's just a very greedy boy.

[Lancelot]

He's not the saviour of the poor, he's just a very greedy boy.

Oh, no argument there; Thaksin could care less about the poor.But he did pretend to care and he was smart enough to run the numbers and realize that by tossing a few crumbs their way he could have a majority and enjoy their unending support and admiration.

[Lancelot]

It would have been chicken feed to him and it would have cemented his place for a very long time. What stopped him? I think at that stage he truly felt invincible and that nobody could stop him from doing exactly as he pleased.

I think you put your finger on it. Until then he had mostly been correct in his assesment of Thai politics and he wasn't about to change his take no prisoners style of leadership.

Pity the poor aide(s) that tried to advise him other wise...

[h90]

IMHO Thaksin missed a golden opportunity to be the martyr and portray himself as an abused Thai patriot,

This is so true. Thaksin could so easily have really taken a permanent stranglehold on power by simply playing the noble, law-abiding victim that took punishment like a man. It might have meant a few months of hardship but the pay-back would have been enormous.

Quite true, glad he didn't have the forsight.

Instead,

Strange that he was clever enough to rise to power, but not street wise enough to remain there. He could have easily turned the tax issue around by proclaiming "Under Thai law, the sale of my corporation was non taxable (or some other BS explanation) but in the interests of national harmony, I voluntarily remit to the treasury xxxx million baht for the education, health care.... of the Thai people." That relatively small payment could have been spun to no end, all to Thaksin's advantage.

Sometimes a little feigned humility can really pay off

And he would only need to tell that, here and there he hand out a million and than he the rest he does not pay.....

[katana]

...Of course, Thaksin has to come back and take his punishment first, he told The Nation. "I would have done that if I were him," Sondhi said. "I would have served the jail sentence first and then I would fulfil my ambition of running Thailand."...

Hasn't Sondhi himself been convicted and sentenced to several jail terms for libel which he's fighting in the courts?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Sondhi-Limth...el-t303580.html

[webfact]

According to Monty Python's...

'blessed are those who have a short memory'

[Plus]

At one point in early 2006 Chamlong offered Thaksin the ultimatum - donate 25% or we'll start street rallies.

Thai at heart, going mainstream became necessary when they came up with New Politics proposal.

When they were fighting Thaksin they couldn't use the same means to twist the law to suit your needs. Thaksin had to be tried and convicted regardless of who wins popularity contest. New politics is a different matter, and different PAD, and they don't have a choice - New Politics must go through parliament and they can't rely on Democrats or anyone else to fight it out for them.

[rixalex]

Wow, thirty-eight non-stop anti-Thaksin Posts.

Such blatant one-sided commentary must be embarrassing for TV.

What's to feel embarrassed about?

People speaking out against a convicted criminal who has fled from justice... who would be embarrassed by that?

[Thai at Heart]

At one point in early 2006 Chamlong offered Thaksin the ultimatum - donate 25% or we'll start street rallies.

Thai at heart, going mainstream became necessary when they came up with New Politics proposal.

When they were fighting Thaksin they couldn't use the same means to twist the law to suit your needs. Thaksin had to be tried and convicted regardless of who wins popularity contest. New politics is a different matter, and different PAD, and they don't have a choice - New Politics must go through parliament and they can't rely on Democrats or anyone else to fight it out for them.

The New Politics Proposal doesn't make a party.

"Good" people to enter politics? Halos anyone?

"Block Evil People"? Bedown Satan.

Ended with the "The proposal on the PAD stage of a 70 : 30 ratio of public representatives to elected representatives is merely an example of how the old-style politics should be replaced and is open to discussions"

Is this the "New Politics" Statement you are talking about. I will smack myself in the head with a shoe if this is the reality of what Sondhi marches into politics with, because it will get him absolutely nowhere.

http://drbusarin.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/...d-new-politics/

With deep respect,

People’s Alliance for Democracy

Monday, September 08, 2008

At Government House

So it was inevitable that 14 months after the event they had to enter politics. And there we were believing that they wouldn't become a political party.

I would say that the most inevitable thing that would have happened by the PAD declaring war single handedly on all corruption in politics by all parties is that someone would probably get hurt.

[IMA_FARANG]

Personalities like his come to believe their own hype. It isn't unusual. As the Leader, lackeys are there to open doors for you, to get the limousine for you, to wait on you for whatever you need or imagine you want. After a while you begin to feel that all those things are your due. You can't believe that what you are doing (really for yourself) isn't for the good of the state and the people you represent. And those who disgaree with your opinions are simply mistaken or oppose you because of their ignorance.

It all begins with an overwhelming Ego that assumes you must be better than all the others. After all, doesn't everyone respect and honor you? Isn't that why they listen to what you say? If they disagree, they must be wrong, because all those lackeys are there to praise you. And all of the lackeys can't be wrong. You are something special, aren't you?

It doesn't happen only in Thailand. The administration of George W. Bush and Dick Chaney in the U.S. are two examples of politicians who had such overwhelming egos they began to believe their own hype.

Edited October 11, 2009 by IMA_FARANG

[pagallim]

Wow, thirty-eight non-stop anti-Thaksin Posts.

Such blatant one-sided commentary must be embarrassing for TV.

What's to feel embarrassed about?

People speaking out against a convicted criminal who has fled from justice... who would be embarrassed by that?

Give us a break! Look at what he was convicted of. I'm not a Thaksin supporter by any means, but please, get some rational in the post. The man was already a multi-millionaire before entering politics, but of course doesn't mean he didn't use his influence to gain more. However, his 'conviction' was nothing more than a politically directed attack, which in international terms doesn't gain weight to either extradite or convict. A couple of links, the first for Sondhi:

"By 1996, he had over US$600 million in assets. His business faced a meltdown following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, forcing him into bankruptcy and sparking investigations into irregular inter-company transactions. Immediately after the crisis, Sondhi furiously attacked the Democrat-led government over its management of the economic recovery. With the election of Thaksin Shinawatra as Prime Minister in 2001, several of Sondhi's associates became leaders in the new government. His banker, Viroj Nualkhair, became president of state-owned Krung Thai Bank and gave more than a billion baht in "debt forgiveness" to Sondhi, allowing him to emerge from bankruptcy. Sondhi became a vocal supporter of Thaksin, calling him "the best prime minister our country has ever had."

That said, I've studied the case surrounding Thaksin's charges, and the circumstances that lead to his conviction. What an absolute travesty of justice! She (wife) paid in excess of the valuation of a land property through (audited) public auction, and through the need for spouse consent, Thaksin signed his approval and gave his identity card as part of the process (i.e. occupation "Prime Minister"). The real irony is that under the same charges, his wife (at the time) was found innocent! The other irony is that on a separate charge of tax evasion, his wife was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment (not suspended) but I don't believe has spent one day in prison! How many references do we have to read about 'Fugitive former Prime Minster Thaksin, as if he's a serial killer!!! The same can be said of several members of the current (Democrat) government and their supporters, who have faced charges of corruption and anti monarchy statements concluded by imprisonment terms, without ever actually being behind bars!

From where I'm reading the situation, prior to Thaksin (and now), Thai politics was/is all about forming coalitions with the resultant trade off of political/economic power. Witnees the defections lead by the Newin faction, who pledged to the Democrats in return for significant Ministerial (and budget) powers. Again, this manifests itself in provincial financial support allocations (i.e. if you supported us you get money, if you didn't, you don't).

What really upset the establishment, was that Thaksin lead a party which won an overall majority in Government, and didn't need to do any horse trading to remain in power. As an individual, Thaksin was also immensely wealthy, and didn't need to resort to government contract manipulations and corruption. This created a void amongst the so called 'elite' whose services were no longer required, and hence their incomes. Read the daily press, and the confirmation of what the current situation is to form your own opinions.

Lastly, the PAD, most of whom (at least the one's that I have met) have been totally influenced by the media, not least of which ASTV, on the basis of 'if it's in the news/TV then it must be true' philosophy. What a joke! The PAD are a scar on the history of Thailand, and in future years will be remembered as a manipulated mass for the gain of a few.

chalong

Posts: 6

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:14 am

Top

Edited October 11, 2009 by pagallim

[rixalex]

Give us a break! Look at what he was convicted of. I'm not a Thaksin supporter by any means, but please, get some rational in the post.

I have looked at what he was convicted of. Although i might not agree with all decisions handed down by the Thai courts, i do respect them and believe that we, as the public, can't pick and choose which to abide by and which to ignore.

Thaksin was found not guilty of concealing his assets as PM. He accepted that verdict. Thaksin was found guilty of abusing his power to allow his wife to buy some state-owned land. He (and you it would seem) doesn't accept that verdict. Tough. That's not the way it works. Your view counts for nothing. Thaksin's view counts for nothing. The judges ruled on this case. Thaksin is a criminal. That's a matter of fact, not opinion.

chalong

Posts: 6

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:14 am

Top

???? A prior alias?

[pagallim]

Give us a break! Look at what he was convicted of. I'm not a Thaksin supporter by any means, but please, get some rational in the post.

I have looked at what he was convicted of. Although i might not agree with all decisions handed down by the Thai courts, i do respect them and believe that we, as the public, can't pick and choose which to abide by and which to ignore.

Thaksin was found not guilty of concealing his assets as PM. He accepted that verdict. Thaksin was found guilty of abusing his power to allow his wife to buy some state-owned land. He (and you it would seem) doesn't accept that verdict. Tough. That's not the way it works. Your view counts for nothing. Thaksin's view counts for nothing. The judges ruled on this case. Thaksin is a criminal. That's a matter of fact, not opinion.

chalong

Posts: 6

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:14 am

Top

???? A prior alias?

Sorry, don't understand the 'poor alias' comment? I don't 'alias' under anything. In the particular case where he was convicted of abuse of privilege, it was on a majority of 4/3 of the judges. I've read of countless other instances since then of politicians being convicted of far more serious crimes, without any of them serving 1 day in prison. It just galls me to read about this 'fugitive' all the time, where the facts of his conviction are so blatantly lacking in substance. Witness the furore a couple of months ago about the supposed broadcasts from the UAE, and the press coverage about how he was imminently to be declared persona non grata there! Where is he now? Dubai. Press (politically manipulated) coverage of the worst order. The hysteria surrounding Thaksin is just so politically driven, and if you can't see that, well, you must have a very divine source of guidance! Check this one out:

'Last July the PAD unveiled a proposal to address this – a “New Politics”, which would reduce the number of elected MPs to 30 per cent, with the rest to be appointed representatives of various business and trade organisations. These proposals were backed up by an army of middle-class supporters, plus a militia of young men armed with golf clubs, baseball bats, catapults and guns."

This is the same party being lead by Sondhi, who've already proved their lack of respect for law, justice, people's rights, and the 'majority rule' philosophy. So, Sondhi is going to 'appoint' your government, disregard your opinions, and make sure that he and his cronies are OK. That's alright with you????

[Plus]

The New Politics Proposal doesn't make a party.

"Good" people to enter politics? Halos anyone?

"Block Evil People"? Bedown Satan.

Ended with the "The proposal on the PAD stage of a 70 : 30 ratio of public representatives to elected representatives is merely an example of how the old-style politics should be replaced and is open to discussions"

So why can't you engage in a discussion on how old-style politics should be replaced?

PAD offered selecting representatives from professional and social groups, I suppose on the premise that they are stakeholders in law-making and so would represent legitimate interests, ie they will be "good people" in PAD terminology. "Bad people" would be those who take money from local businesses, throw it into the electoral machine, win the votes, and then go on ripping off the country partly to repay their debts, partly to enrich themselves before House gets dissolved. Little of what they do has any connection with their paper jobs - legislating on people's behalf. They show up at weddings and funerals and that's about it. Two thirds of the country feel that MPs do not represent them.

So, why not give these two thirds alternative representation?

[rixalex]

I've read of countless other instances since then of politicians being convicted of far more serious crimes, without any of them serving 1 day in prison.

Here's the difference. When i read about these cases it makes me mad at the lack of justice and i want for them a rightful punishment. That's the injustice i see. The injustice you see is that because others have got away with crimes, how is it fair that Thaksin should have to face a rightful punishment? You've got it all upside down. Arguing that Thaksin should avoid proper justice just because others have is a strange thing to do don't you think? It's the kind of daft argument i'd expect from a "red-shirt".

It just galls me to read about this 'fugitive' all the time, where the facts of his conviction are so blatantly lacking in substance.

As i already said, there will be times when we might not agree with court verdicts but we must accept that as we are not privy to all the information in a case and as most of haven't spent years studying law, we shouldn't arrogantly assume that merely having read a few newspapers that we are better placed to pass judgement. The law says that Thaksin is a criminal. You can put the word fugitive in speech marks all you like, it won't change the fact that he is exactly that for all the rest of us who believe in the rule of law and abiding by court's decisions.

This is the same party being lead by Sondhi, who've already proved their lack of respect for law, justice, people's rights, and the 'majority rule' philosophy. So, Sondhi is going to 'appoint' your government, disregard your opinions, and make sure that he and his cronies are OK. That's alright with you????

I've already stated that i have no time for either Thaksin or the politically driven groups either fighting for him or against him. The sooner they all go away the better. That process starts with Thaksin, the rest will take care of itself.

[rixalex]

chalong

Posts: 6

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:14 am

Top

You wrote this at the end of your post. What does it mean?

[Thai at Heart]

The New Politics Proposal doesn't make a party.

"Good" people to enter politics? Halos anyone?

"Block Evil People"? Bedown Satan.

Ended with the "The proposal on the PAD stage of a 70 : 30 ratio of public representatives to elected representatives is merely an example of how the old-style politics should be replaced and is open to discussions"

So why can't you engage in a discussion on how old-style politics should be replaced?

PAD offered selecting representatives from professional and social groups, I suppose on the premise that they are stakeholders in law-making and so would represent legitimate interests, ie they will be "good people" in PAD terminology. "Bad people" would be those who take money from local businesses, throw it into the electoral machine, win the votes, and then go on ripping off the country partly to repay their debts, partly to enrich themselves before House gets dissolved. Little of what they do has any connection with their paper jobs - legislating on people's behalf. They show up at weddings and funerals and that's about it. Two thirds of the country feel that MPs do not represent them.

So, why not give these two thirds alternative representation?

We can start with vote buying and it's continued eradication. Then we can continue with mandatory manifestos for parties. Government funding of parliamentary parties of a certain size. Proper declaration and a public register of donations. Mandatory public disclosure of government contracts granted above a certain size. Continued and increased scope of asset declarations of MP's, their businesses etc. They could even put a proviso on the ballot paper asking the question? "In the event of a non-clear majority parliament, who would you like your candidate's party to partner with?"

Firstly, us having a debate about what we would do to change the system is rather futile isn't it? Secondly, it isn't the subject of the OP.

There is nothing wrong with "old style" democracy. It has been subjugated by the Thai system. Remove the Thainess from it and you have a functioning parliamentary democracy. It doesn't need a 70:30 system.

[animatic]

Thank you Pagallim, Post #43.....

Of the 40-odd posts, you finally bring some balance.

I agree strongly with you at some risk.

The moment someone agrees with someone other than the anti-Thaksin brigade, they immediately attack the messenger. They are very quick to accuse one of collusion, or of having multiple accounts, or some such thing. Whereas the anti-Thaksin brigade can blast away to their hearts-content, those of us who differ must do so with great care and deliberation.

So with accusations as such to follow, let me tell you your insight is worthy of carefull consideration for anyone not coming from a prejudicial starting point.

Sadly that "balanced" post includes several very incorrect 'facts'.

But no matter the preponderance of correctly fact'd posts,

and their weight of accuracy more than makes up for the few

biased and seemingly inept defensive attempts.

There is a reason this thread was overwhelmingly not pro-Thaksin.

It is because he was convicted,

and not of "Abuse of Privilege", but of Conflict Of Interest law.

And said law was on the books BEFORE Thaksin came to power,

and he was CONVICTED while his own PPP government was in power,

and while he had freedom of travel WITHIN Thailand at that time.

He controled the government of the day and yet couldn't

pastry-gate; purchase or threaten his way out of a conviction.

So, I'd say nice try at balance,

except it really wasn't nicely or well done.

Ya can't defensively just make up facts and dates to suit,

when so many here know the real facts and dates.

som nam nah.

Water under the bilge.

So Mr. Dirk is you nik from

Mr.

or

Mr.

Both are Dirks, but different meanings for sure.

Edited October 12, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Time out before I found the right image.

Either the nik is from:

Dirk Bogarde

or

Scottish Dirk

Rather different meanings...

Or maybe you have yet another?

[Plus]

We can start with vote buying and it's continued eradication.

It has been started many times already and the process is evolving faster than the law can catch up.

It's a symptom, not the disease. People sell their votes because they don't have real interest in election outcome and do not feel like participants in democratic process.

There have been great many arguments on what role vote buying plays in electing MPs, interpreting various poll results as increasing or decreasing its role. If you leave those arguments aside for a moment, it is clear that criteria for selecting a MPs for national parliament have nothing to do with MPs duties and desired qualifications. Even in the best case scenario of MPs working for their communities, building roads canals and schools etc, has nothing to do with legislating national policies, and a politician with a grand standing in national arena would have no time to serve his electorate.

That needs to be changed one way or another. Involving one's professional interest in election process is one idea that deserves consideration because any national legislation dealing with your professional field will immediately affect the voter and so no one would raise and argument "I don't care what my MP does in Bangkok".

Then we can continue with mandatory manifestos for parties. Government funding of parliamentary parties of a certain size.

Has been tried, too. Parties still remain collections of strong local candidates incorporated in larger power pyramids and their main job in parliament is to agree with party bosses in exchange for release of funds for local projects.

Proper declaration and a public register of donations. Mandatory public disclosure of government contracts granted above a certain size. Continued and increased scope of asset declarations of MP's, their businesses etc.

There are growing voices against these asset declarations. To be fair, if a family had been engaged in business for generations, their assets would be very difficult to trace and account for, and some of the latest moves on this are rather ridiculous. What is the big deal if Suthep holds five thousand shares of True? What possible conflict of interest could be there?

There is nothing wrong with "old style" democracy. It has been subjugated by the Thai system. Remove the Thainess from it and you have a functioning parliamentary democracy. It doesn't need a 70:30 system.

And people in Europe could argue that their democracies are dysfunctional, too - it's all a matter of perception and relativity. They also have centuries of tweaking and improving their systems, which, among other things, means they can't just abandon them after all this work. Thailand is different in this sense, there's nothing to lose if they completely overhaul their system.

[TAWP]

IMHO Thaksin missed a golden opportunity to be the martyr and portray himself as an abused Thai patriot,

This is so true. Thaksin could so easily have really taken a permanent stranglehold on power by simply playing the noble, law-abiding victim that took punishment like a man. It might have meant a few months of hardship but the pay-back would have been enormous.

He probably thought he could go for the swift play and be gone with it completely instead of looking at it more tactically. Arrogance ruled over logic.

[TAWP]

Wow, thirty-eight non-stop anti-Thaksin Posts.

Such blatant one-sided commentary must be embarrassing for TV.

I find it more embarrassing with apologists that always rear their heads in these threads.

[TAWP]

Wow, thirty-eight non-stop anti-Thaksin Posts.

Such blatant one-sided commentary must be embarrassing for TV.

I find it more embarrassing with apologists that always rear their heads in these threads.

So let me get this straight Tawp.

To disagree with you and your friends in the anti-Thaksin brigade is being "apologists", and they are not expressing an alternative POV?

So Pagallim's POV in Post #43 is actually being an "apologist"?

Who knew!

Oops, but now I'm in trouble. I must be Pagallim's buddy, or I must have multiple accounts, or whatever.

I think the lady protests too much.

I clearly said that I think it is more embarrassing when apologists come into the thread, which include recent favorites as Koo82 and other [self-admitted] hardcore red-fans that will explain any misdeed away or just proclaim it isn't true if that fails etc. Including faking Google Earth pictures to show how many reds was in an demonstration and claiming it is indeed a real shot of the current events...

But whatever floats your boat.

[rixalex]

The moment someone agrees with someone other than the anti-Thaksin brigade, they immediately attack the messenger.

It's called disagreeing.

They are very quick to accuse one of collusion, or of having multiple accounts, or some such thing.

I note Mr Dirk that you have only been with us a couple of weeks, so of course there would be no way of you knowing this, but i'm afraid to inform that the problem of members being banned and returning is a common one.

Whereas the anti-Thaksin brigade can blast away to their hearts-content, those of us who differ must do so with great care and deliberation.

I sympathise with you and your brigade. Defending criminals must indeed take a great deal of effort and care.

[animatic]

Hmmm........I do believe I touched a nerve.

Mr. Animatic of the anti-Thaksin brigade.

"Me thinks he protest too much"

Not at all,

it was a question, with a touch of humor, not nerves,

that you side stepped rather ham handedly.

You could have just answered the question.

But I might observer your style seems to now show resemblances.

Who recently used that brigade phrase. hmmm.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

more crap

Do you need to be told again ? This is an expat forum. Political COMMENT is fine, but continued one sided politics will not be. Get it Or do you have a short memory span ?

[marshbags]

The 2 years was not what encouraged him do a runner, it was the realisation that his influence no longer had any effect on the outcome of not only this conviction / sentence, but the list of charges that had built up against him and are now awaiting his presence here in Thailand.

Remember the look on his face when his wife was convicted and he was confronted with the realisation he no longer could dictate and manipulate.

No, for me the 2 years is small change when compared to what would / will surely follow, come the day of reckoning.

He could and would have gone via easy street and only briefly suffered the recognised Puyai ( non ) hardships that society seemingly allows their undeserved status and MONEY to be priviledged too when paying duly recognised lip service to Thai justice and it,s institutions.

God help Thailand should he ever be allowed to regain his position of influence, pillaging and abuse of all but the chosen few of his ilk.

marshbags

Edited November 20, 2009 by marshbags

[gregb]

God help Thailand should he ever be allowed to regain his position of influence, pillaging and abuse of all but the chosen few of his ilk.

He won't. There is no chance of this happening. There is however a chance of civil war if Thaksin keeps playing. There are too many people who will never accept him under any circumstance. Thailand would become Burma if Thaksin were to actually return and win. The time when he could have modelled Thailand after Cambodia is long gone. Now it will be violent revolt.

Thaksin was driven from power in order to prevent a bloody clash between rival factions, which many estimate was very close in 2006. If he returned, that outcome would be a certainty.

And yes, you are correct marshbags, the real problem with Thaksin was not the 2 year jail sentence, but the number of other crimes on his docket. Sondhi's real demand was not serve a token time in prison. The meaning behind the words was "accept the continuing punishment the court will give you."

That Thaksin could not accept. He still thinks he can win this war. He can't win, of course, but Thailand can still lose.

[LawnGnome]

You konw, its funny, but i actually think that if Thaksin has stayed, and began to serve his sentance, he would have found a pardon easier, and might have found a way to even get back into office.

As it is, he is an international pariah (aside from the most vile dictators), and has to suffer the shame of being labeled a "fugitive" everywhere he goes. Poor guy, almost makes you feel sorry for him...almost.