Desperate Thaksin May Go For Broke

[Jingthing]

Sigh.. Honestly, people electing Mr. Thaksin elected him BECAUSE of his business experience in running one of the biggest Thai companies. Honestly, tranferring ownership of so many mega-companies was never going to be easy. And now the "burden of proof rests with the accused", with the prosecuting simply stating they don't believe the evidence.

Unbelievable.

Really?

Doesn't Thailand operate under the Napoleonic system of justice where you're presumed guilty if charged and have to prove your innocence? Why a different standard for the drug dealer vs. the rich man?

Thai law is (Roman) code based and Roman code is where the idea of innocent until proven guilty stems from.

Perhaps it is more Napoleonic in actual practice, witnessed by the remarkable "confession" rates here.

[Samuian]

Sigh.. Honestly, people electing Mr. Thaksin elected him BECAUSE of his business experience in running one of the biggest Thai companies. Honestly, tranferring ownership of so many mega-companies was never going to be easy. And now the "burden of proof rests with the accused", with the prosecuting simply stating they don't believe the evidence.

Unbelievable.

What is unbelievable is that educated people after reading this article from the Nation still don't realize that all this farce is politically motivated because , as the prosecution clearly acknowledge, they absolutely NO PROOF of any wrong doing. "probably" is the word most often used by the prosecution. Based of the facts presented, in any court in a democratic country, either in Europe or the USA, Mr Thaksin would walk out free.

It's mind boggling, but the ones who claim that there is "no proof" fail same time to bring up evidence that there is no proof, the assets have been concealed and his companies interests, especially Shin.Corp. gained vastly from him being the CEO of Thailand Inc.

Why has England then and ManC drawn the carpet I wonder, have they been "biased" as well?

He got away once, with one vote.... "honest mistakes", this case is nothing new or due to the coup this has ever been going on since he entered office!

The "democratic elections" where all made up, as his defense, TRT dissolved because of massive Vote rigging - all "made up"?

Alright then after all, why doesn't he come up with the evidence, why doesn't HE prove his innocence?

Why the divorce, why the splitting of all the assets...ad why in such a foolish way,because much of it is completely incongruous, full of solecisms, of contradictions?

He could get an Armada of Lawyers and prove his innocence using international media maybe... why - is there something to it all, after all?

[caf]

Publicus et al

If there were an election and the other side got in would you accept that. And would you accept no further coups to reverse any elected government? Or are you just anti the opposition party per se. Your posts are certainly indicating that by continually bashing Thaksin and the party he stands for.

It is the same in many countries with some never seeing the other sides point of view and not accepting a vote if it is against ones own party

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maestro
Corrected spelling of a name - Maestro

[h90]

Publicus et al

If there were an election and the other side got in would you accept that. And would you accept no further coups to reverse any elected government? Or are you just anti the opposition party per se. Your posts are certainly indicating that by continually bashing Thaksin and the party he stands for.

It is the same in many countries with some never seeing the other sides point of view and not accepting a vote if it is against ones own party

just to make that clear the last coup did not reverse an elected government.

Before was an illegal election which was not won by TRT. The government was a care taker government which time had already expired and the parliament had less people than required by the 1997 constitution.

It is not the fact that everything was happy and the army just staged a coup. Thailand almost got a dictatorship of Thaksin.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maestro
Corrected spelling of a name - Maestro

[p_brownstone]

Sigh.. Honestly, people electing Mr. Thaksin elected him BECAUSE of his business experience in running one of the biggest Thai companies.

Wrong.

Most Middle Class Thais voted for Thaksin / TRT in 2001 because, although they expect their politicians to be corrupt, they believed that Thaksin was already so rich (albeit via corruption) that he had no need to add to his fortune by yet further corruption.

They were proved spectacularly wrong as "policy corruption" became the norm.

One other important point which is often ignored: If Thaksin really wanted to introduce true Democracy to Thailand - as he now repeatedly claims - he had a golden opportunity after that first TRT Election victory which gave him almost total control of Parliament.

He had no need to form "Coalition" Government - no need to be obliged to give lucrative Ministries etc. to members of other Parties simply to keep a Government together.

He could have chosen "technocrats" with true specialist knowledge of their fields - Economics, Finance, Health Care - whatever.

He could have changed the face of Thai Politics forever.

He did not.

He appointed the same old faces - or spouses and relatives of the same old faces - and Thai Politics continued as before.

Patrick

[samran]

Sigh.. Honestly, people electing Mr. Thaksin elected him BECAUSE of his business experience in running one of the biggest Thai companies. Honestly, tranferring ownership of so many mega-companies was never going to be easy. And now the "burden of proof rests with the accused", with the prosecuting simply stating they don't believe the evidence.

Unbelievable.

Dunno, he handled the transfer of 30% ownership of PTT from the state to his best mates and close connections pretty efficiently.

So much so that there were none left for the public to purchase when they lined up at the bank to try and reserve some prior to the IPO. How do I know? Well, I was on a list of people who got in first. My measly 300,000 baht parcel of shares was nothing compared to some of the people on that same list purchase. And the surnames, oh the surnames on that list! A who’s who of TRT ‘in crowd’ taking dibs on parcels many, many times in excess of mine.

[animatic]

TRT was a coalition purchased BEFORE the election,

not cobbled together afterwards.

Thus giving the impression,of some unity, but rereading old papers; even under the

suit happy hands of Thaksin's legal teams, showed this was just another coalition of the greedy.

Kicking and scrapping for their share of the pie.

Same same, but different masthead.

[Stumbo]

"After using neighbouring country Cambodia to attack Thailand", "Thaksin sets off on a "kamikaze" mission and takes the country hostage as he has always done" - a nice piece of political propaganda, with a pinch of rotten nationalism.

thaksin recently have said, that he has some $100-200k left - wisely invested, he can live off that money for long

The Daily Nation Thaksin hate rant, and as usual the gullible and those too lazy to get a broader spectrum of views here suck it up and get all emotional about it. I've said it before and will say it again due to TVs business relationship with The Nation we are inundated with daily nationalistic anti-Thaksin tirades almost solely from a propagandist rag with no editorial credibility or partiality. I can only assume the owners of this blog were hurt by Thaksin at some stage and thus their desire to push this hate agenda and keep fanning the flames.

He was no worse corruption wise than the current mob or those that preceded him (namely the current mob). In fact Thailand's corruption index has gotten worse since the military coup that ousted him. Read also that that he had balanced the budget and then the army then set about running the deficit up again for their own "purchases" and it is still in the red.

Quite frankly I have stated I think all politicians are as bad and corrupt as each other, but what has actually improved in Thailand since Thaksin being overthrown in a military coup, what a country divided, airport seizures? And yes I believe the idiotic threats against the PM are vile, however he was never seen as honestly elected, so fringe maniacs have ammunition for their hate agendas.

Personally think if the government feels secure and legitimate they should advise the media in their pockets to just ignore him. But they don't do they? What has any of this got to do with foreigners who should be impartial about governments as we do not vote, or stage coups for that matter?

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maestro
Corrected spelling of a name - Maestro

[Jingthing]

The above post ignores the massively destructiveness of the Thaksin forces during the last few years. The government has had to focus on suppressing a redshirt revolution more than normal governance. Imagine how much better Thailand would be without these divisions. Its truly sad.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Jingthing

[Supernova]

just to make that clear the last coup did not reverse an elected government.

Before was an illegal election which was not won by TRT. The government was a care taker government which time had already expired and the parliament had less people than required by the 1997 constitution.

It is not the fact that everything was happy and the army just staged a coup.

I never realized the government had a "shelf life". LOL! Whatever the circumstances, that doesn't give anybody the right to topple the ruling body by a military coup.

Thailand almost got a dictatorship of Thaksin.

And I almost became the 44th President of the United States...

Please stop blurting things out which have no basis in reality.

Ridiculous.

[Supernova]

Imagine how much better Thailand would be without these divisions. Its truly sad.

Imagine how much better Thailand would be without the 'elite' interfering in politics...

[animatic]

Being elected democratically.

And being re-electable.

And being deposed from an Interim PM job.

Are not valid reasons to be absolved from charges of Grand Larceny

and Illegal Policy Corruption for his own enrichment, of upwards of 100 million baht

and breaking long standing constitutional laws. If convicted, that's his problem.

They are actually quite disconnected from the legal facts in the case.

And are just excuses for some deal making,

but change nothing in the facts of the case one iota.

That doesn't even address, lese majesty, sedition and possible treason charges against him.

More things he will have to deal with if he can't crash the country, and take power via force.

Edited November 23, 2009 by animatic

[jackspratt]

Sigh.. Honestly, people electing Mr. Thaksin elected him BECAUSE of his business experience in running one of the biggest Thai companies. Honestly, tranferring ownership of so many mega-companies was never going to be easy. And now the "burden of proof rests with the accused", with the prosecuting simply stating they don't believe the evidence.

Unbelievable.

What is unbelievable is that educated people after reading this article from the Nation still don't realize that all this farce is politically motivated because , as the prosecution clearly acknowledge, they absolutely NO PROOF of any wrong doing. "probably" is the word most often used by the prosecution. Based of the facts presented, in any court in a democratic country, either in Europe or the USA, Mr Thaksin would walk out free.

The reality is that in Australia, Thaksin (although not him alone) would be in jail for at least 20 years for the corruption, the mayhem, and the illegal killings that were instigated at his behest.

Please don't try to draw an example from the legal systems in the west. Thaksin would never have got to first base (assets concealment very early in his "reign") had western standards applied. And that certainly is a very clear case of a politically motivated result.

Oh how quickly, and conveniently we forget, when we try to defend the indefensible.

But perhaps we ought to be more charitable, on the basis that his crimes and transgressions are so widespread, and go back so far, that it is hard to remember.

Edited November 23, 2009 by jackspratt

[geriatrickid]

I'm not one of those nuts that believes in conspiracies, but I do keep asian political history in mind. This suggests to me that if Thaksin is still free flying between multiple countries, including flying through Chinese & Vietnamese airspace, that some countries do not have a problem with him and may be sympathetic to his desire to get back into power. Perhaps sympathetic is a bit generous and it's more like hedging their bets or acting to keep a pesky nation off balance. If Thaksin ever gets back in, he's going to owe some big favours to the multiple countries that helped him out during his bleakest times.

As long as the military continues to intervene in politics, Thailand can never join the club of democratic countries. Whether you like Thaksin or not, he was elected by the people in a free election, not once but three times and then deposed in a coup. How can the powers that be adopt such a self righteous attitude while ignoring such a blatant breach of democratic values.

I agree with that, but I'm sure it will cause uncomfortable squirming from some TV members that believe that some pigs are more equal than others.

[Insight]

Interesting stuff from both Gen.Prem and Thaksin in the unmentionable one.

Looks like a face-saving way of putting the breaks on from Thaksin. Reconciliation has always been on the cards - there's been endless discussions initiated by the Democrats in parliament on how it could be achieved, with changes to the constitution being suggested by all parties. If Prem is suggesting something else in private, why is Thaksin's response very public (Twitter, <deleted>).

Unless it's an attempt by Thaksin to look reasonable before he pulls the pin out...

[brahmburgers]

The Nation opinion piece said Thaksin has about $100-200k left....

I believe that's a typo. Closer to reality would 100 million to 200 million dollars. Those were the numbers T himself bandied around in the recent Times Online interview, though it's tough to tell with him, as he lies so often.

Whether you like Thaksin or not, he was elected by the people in a free election, not once but three times and then deposed in a coup.

He was appointed PM in parliamentary maneuvering twice, not three times. He was never elected to the post within a popular election format. When he was thrown out by the bloodless coup, he was officially a caretaker PM which is, by definition, a temporary post, held until a proper new PM is instated.

[Jingthing]

just to make that clear the last coup did not reverse an elected government.

Before was an illegal election which was not won by TRT. The government was a care taker government which time had already expired and the parliament had less people than required by the 1997 constitution.

It is not the fact that everything was happy and the army just staged a coup.

I never realized the government had a "shelf life". LOL! Whatever the circumstances, that doesn't give anybody the right to topple the ruling body by a military coup.

Thailand almost got a dictatorship of Thaksin.

And I almost became the 44th President of the United States...

Please stop blurting things out which have no basis in reality.

Ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. I will rephrase it. Thaksin's obvious intent was to become dictator for life in Thailand. He has not given up. He is not interested in democracy (and he said as much when he had power).

Edited November 23, 2009 by Jingthing

[dukkha]

Have heard one American NGO already has evacuation procedures in place.........getting scary!! Dukkha

[Jingthing]

Imagine how much better Thailand would be without these divisions. Its truly sad.

Imagine how much better Thailand would be without the 'elite' interfering in politics...

What's the difference between your rhetoric and the rhetoric of the Maoist cultural revolution period in China?

[Nacho]

As long as the military continues to intervene in politics, Thailand can never join the club of democratic countries. Whether you like Thaksin or not, he was elected by the people in a free election, not once but three times and then deposed in a coup. How can the powers that be adopt such a self righteous attitude while ignoring such a blatant breach of democratic values.

It gets ennoying reading posts like this over and over in these forums. Thaksin was not elected by the Thai people. Thailand politics does not work the same way as American politics where the population votes for the president. Thailand is similar to a British style government where members of a party vote to decide who will be head of that party. The people have no say in who will be prime minister. The prime minister is the head of the party who holds the most seats.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maestro
Corrected spelling of a name - Maestro

[animatic]

As long as the military continues to intervene in politics, Thailand can never join the club of democratic countries. Whether you like Thaksin or not, he was elected by the people in a free election, not once but three times and then deposed in a coup. How can the powers that be adopt such a self righteous attitude while ignoring such a blatant breach of democratic values.

It gets ennoying reading posts like this over and over in these forums. Thaksin was not elected by the Thai people. Thailand politics does not work the same way as American politics where the population votes for the president. Thailand is similar to a British style government where members of a party vote to decide who will be head of that party. The people have no say in who will be prime minister. The prime minister is the head of the party who holds the most seats.

Or of a non-50% majority party that can make a coalition exist.

ie hold the most seats, via agreements with smaller parties.

If not the biggest vote getting party, then the next largest party by votes,

can then do the same. If neither party can put together a viable coalition,

then a new election is called.

There have been coalitions in some countries of several small parties

that overshadowed 2-3 larger parties but made and held their coalitions.

All quite proper in parliamentary systems.

Thaksin was elected "by the people" as a MP and nothing else.

He was elected as PM by his party and his coalition members votes.

Lacking a viable coalition, he is now trying to regain power in any means he can pull it off.

[awd]

Many countries have found that as long as the courts negate the will of the people it really doesn't matter how elected officials technically get elected.

[mojaco]

I suggest Mr. Supernova study the "Ten Steps to Dictatorship" of which one of the most important steps is to shut down all unfavorable news sources. Then review all the unbelievably large suits Mr. T brought against such news sources when he was in power. That is when I realized he was purposing to take absolute control of Thailand. Blessedly he was removed in time.

[jackspratt]

Many countries have found that as long as the courts negate the will of the people it really doesn't matter how elected officials technically get elected.

And many countries have found that rule of law will override the "will of the people". If the law is a good law, and correctly and impartially applied, long may that be the case.

[awd]

Many countries have found that as long as the courts negate the will of the people it really doesn't matter how elected officials technically get elected.

And many countries have found that rule of law will override the "will of the people". If the law is a good law, and correctly and impartially applied, long may that be the case.

The best laws that money can buy!

[animatic]

Many countries have found that as long as the courts negate the will of the people it really doesn't matter how elected officials technically get elected.

And many countries have found that rule of law will override the "will of the people". If the law is a good law, and correctly and impartially applied, long may that be the case.

The best laws that money can buy!

Many countries have also found

that the will of the people doesn't include their elected leaders stealing from their taxes,

and so they enact laws to stop those that abrogate their elected responsibilities for their own profit.

And then boot the bums out.

The will of the people doesn't suddenly end after the ballot box closes.

The will of the people is not monochromatic, but looks at all facets of their leaders doings.

[h90]

just to make that clear the last coup did not reverse an elected government.

Before was an illegal election which was not won by TRT. The government was a care taker government which time had already expired and the parliament had less people than required by the 1997 constitution.

It is not the fact that everything was happy and the army just staged a coup.

I never realized the government had a "shelf life". LOL! Whatever the circumstances, that doesn't give anybody the right to topple the ruling body by a military coup.

Thailand almost got a dictatorship of Thaksin.

And I almost became the 44th President of the United States...

Please stop blurting things out which have no basis in reality.

Ridiculous.

I don't know from which country you come, but the countries I am used to have governments with "shelf life". Is pretty common that after some years, often 4 or 5, new elections must be hold. Meanwhile there is a caretaker government. In Thailand the caretaker government can not stay forever. After I think 3 month there is no government anymore, there is a limit on the time of a caretaker government! Everything longer is outside the constitution. (With good reason)

Both in Austria and in Thailand than the premier would go to the President or for Thailand HMK and tell they have failed.

I have no idea about Thailand but in Austria there are several ways out of the problem. The President has a lot options to fix that.

When we recall the situation in Thailand: The caretaker government was over its expiration date. So it was outside the constitution.

The parliament got seated with less than the necessary seats required in the 1997 constitution. So no parliament.

If you would bend it, you could even say there was no coup, because against who???

[Nacho]

Or of a non-50% majority party that can make a coalition exist.

ie hold the most seats, via agreements with smaller parties.

If not the biggest vote getting party, then the next largest party by votes,

can then do the same. If neither party can put together a viable coalition,

then a new election is called.

There have been coalitions in some countries of several small parties

that overshadowed 2-3 larger parties but made and held their coalitions.

All quite proper in parliamentary systems.

Thaksin was elected "by the people" as a MP and nothing else.

He was elected as PM by his party and his coalition members votes.

Lacking a viable coalition, he is now trying to regain power in any means he can pull it off.

Exactly and that is what Thailand has in power now.

Too many TV Thaksin supporters post absolute nonsense with obviously no knowledge of any politics in this country. I wonder if they would still keep their same opinions if they did about half an hour of constructive research?

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maestro
Corrected spelling of a name - Maestro

[Publicus]

Publicus et al

If there were an election and the other side got in would you accept that. And would you accept no further coups to reverse any elected government? Or are you just anti the opposition party per se. Your posts are certainly indicating that by continually bashing Thaksin and the party he stands for.

It is the same in many countries with some never seeing the other sides point of view and not accepting a vote if it is against ones own party

Your questions are push-leading questions which are framed to suit yourself. Worse, you presume to question my belief and core confidence in democracy and in legitimate democratic processes, to which I do not take kindly.

I didn't vote for Nixon, who deserved what he brought down on himself or Reagan but each was my president. Neither did I vote for Bush the father and certainly not Bush the son (of a ****) but each was my president. Lyndon Johnson was both my president and, based on my voluntary decision, my commander in chief.

Your questions sound like they come from Nixon's playbook while he was a member of the ghastly House Un-American Activities Committee of the 1940s.

Both Nixon and Thaksin fail to pass the smell test. Same for Chairman Mao in his time, place and circumstance.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maestro
Corrected spelling of a name - Maestro

[Supernova]

I suggest Mr. Supernova study the "Ten Steps to Dictatorship" of which one of the most important steps is to shut down all unfavorable news sources. Then review all the unbelievably large suits Mr. T brought against such news sources when he was in power. That is when I realized he was purposing to take absolute control of Thailand. Blessedly he was removed in time.

I was here during all those years Thaksin & TRT were in power. I'm very well-aware of how Thaksin dealt with the Press and the many controversies surrounding his leadership. In fact, I was very openly critical to many decisions he made while serving as PM.

So he filed several lawsuits against the Press, big deal. I don't see what that has to do with anything. As to shutting down unfavorable news sources, he is guilty as charged. Still, this alone hardly qualifies as being a dictator. Although he was confident and overzealous at times, Thaksin never even came close to taking absolute control. The Thai people would never accept it.

Blessedly he was removed in time.

Perhaps...

But the manner in which he was removed is totally unacceptable.

I don't know from which country you come, but the countries I am used to have governments with "shelf life". Is pretty common that after some years, often 4 or 5, new elections must be hold. Meanwhile there is a caretaker government.

I was merely commenting on how you used the word 'expired'. Most countries I know hold elections once every four years.

I have no idea about Thailand but in Austria there are several ways out of the problem. The President has a lot options to fix that.

When we recall the situation in Thailand: The caretaker government was over its expiration date. So it was outside the constitution.

The parliament got seated with less than the necessary seats required in the 1997 constitution. So no parliament.

Like I already said, it doesn't give anybody the right to orchestrate a military coup against the ruling body. There isn't a single country in the world where a coup is deemed to be an acceptable method of bringing about change.