Prime Minister Abhisit Opposed To Amnesty For Thaksin

[Publicus]

Why shouldn't Thailand do as the US did with Richard Nixon and grant Thaksin absolution ?

Didn't the US do something similar with those involved in the Iran/Contra crimes ?

There was some equally abhorrent outcome by the US and UK after the surrender of Japan in the 40's when many of the Japanese military and political criminals were never sent to trial by US and UK military courts as happened to the Germans.

I hope the Thai's don't do as the US did with these particular political criminals though.

I am merely citing the US and UK as current powerful governments who do such things on a somewhat frequent basis. Because the media is not able to reveal it so much, I'd bet this type of action is occuring in China, Russia, Persia, Saudi Arabia etc...

Because of the media, countries that have media that are allowed to reveal these actions are easy to target as I've done in citing the US and the UK. My intention was only to use those two as easy to find examples...not to hold them up as worse than the rest.

The posts in this thread that keep hightlighting Abhasit's illegal attainment of political power is comforting.

How can he uphold the law from an illegal position of power ?

The current Thai government, by its own actions, does not uphold democracy - it's M.O. is 'might is right'.

The unelected, constitutionally chosen successor to the resigned in Watergate disgrace Pres. Nixon, Gerald Ford, pardoned private citizen Richard M. Nixon "for any crimes he committed or that he may have committed" while Nixon had been president. Ford then proceeded to lose the next election, to Jimmy Carter. Exit polls on election day confirmed scientific public opinion survey polling leading up to the election that the pardon was a significant factor in Ford's expulsion from the presidency by the electorate. 

President George Herbert Walker Bush pardoned six among the Iran-Contra suspects being pursued by Justice Department Special Legal Counsel Lawrence Walsh, to include the pardon of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. All were guilty as sin so Bush the father pardoned the six on Christmas Day, 1992 which was the last Christmas Bush the father spent in the White House after having been defeated the previous month by the then Governor of the state of Arkansas, Bill Clinton.

The Tokyo War Crimes Trial began on May 3, 1946 (not on April 29 as stated in Wikipedia) and concluded on Nov 4, 1948. The Tribunal which conducted the trials included judges from the US, UK, USSR, China, Korea, the Philippines and other countries of East Asia. Twenty-eight high ranking military and political leaders of wartime Japan went into the dock on 55 indictments, all of whom were found guilty, resulting in 7 being hanged, 16 given life terms, 2 given long prison terms and one being declared insane. Two of the 28 died during the trial.

As to the topic more directly, anyone who claims Thailand doesn't have democracy  might also qualify as being insane to some measure or extent . We argue over the quality of Thai democracy (or lack of quality) but couldn't deny the fact of democracy in Thailand except as a point of rhetoric or as part of the interminable and desperate effort to get Thaksin back both his loot and power. 

 

Edited January 1, 2010 by Publicus

[animatic]

There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate"

Parsing this lovely, yet inadequate turn of words.

Perceived by some as not correct, yet on the books as legally correct?

Naw that doesn't fly.

A subjective choice to ignore the actual law for your personal moral preference?

Closer to your point, but no cigarillo

Well that stretches the definitions, which are so close this parsing is rather moot.

Legal adjective

1 : of or relating to law or the processes of law legal question> legal action>

2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law legal tariff rate> legal government>

b : fulfilling the requirements of law legal voter>

c : having a status derived from law : recognized as such by law legal certainty>

d : created by operation of esp. statutory law <legal incompetence> legal presumption>

—compare CONVENTIONAL 1, JUDICIAL 2 e : established by law legal test for mental capacity>

3 : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL legal>

4 : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity :

deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity

—see also EQUITY —compare EQUITABLE

5 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or one of its members legal department>

legal community>

b : of or relating to the study of law legal education>

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Legitimate

adjective

1 : conceived or born of parents lawfully married to each other or having been

made through legal procedure equal in status to one so conceived or born;

also : having rights and obligations under the law as the child of such birth

2 : being neither spurious nor false legitimate grievance>

3 : being in accordance with law or with established legal forms and requirements legitimate government>

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards legitimate claim of entitlement>

legitimate business reason> —le·git·i·mate·ly adverb

Legitimate transitive verb

: to make legitimate: as

a : to give legal status or authorization to

b : to show or affirm to be justified or have merit

c : to put (an illegitimate child) in the state of a child born of married parents before the law by legal means

—compare FILIATE

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

So it seems your argument and choice of words deflates your argument on a legal basis.

Maybe you need to try Philosophy 201 like Permanent_Disorder would attempt.

Maybe Descartes, Schopenhauer or Nitche will help you make some point?

[WAERTH]

Are you talking about Thaksin Shinawata , the only democratically elected prime minister to get reelected in Thailand in recent years. The guy who got rid of a load of drug dealers, built the airport and gave poor people affordable healthcare. The guy who upset the rich in Thailand (check out the latest Forbes listings to see who they are) by helping the poor. OK he didnt do everything well but he was only got rid of because Thailand is not a democracy.

Can you please show me the elections he got elected in? As far as I know he was appointed by the winning parties as in any constitutional monarchy. Never ever ever elected as a prime minister. Same like were I am from the Netherlands .... Thaksin furthermore had 2000+ people executed some of whom where innocent. This is pure murder as there was no judicial proces. So far for trias politica ... the basis of a democracy. Furthermore he only finished the airport, and his cronies got rich in the process ....

Waerth

[Steve2UK]

So much pedantry...... to such little purpose. Even in your own choice of a dictionary of LAW, I see they too perceive a distinction in the usage:

There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate"

<snip>

Legal adjective

1 : of or relating to law or the processes of law legal question> legal action>

2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law legal tariff rate> legal government>

b : fulfilling the requirements of law legal voter>

c : having a status derived from law : recognized as such by law legal certainty>

d : created by operation of esp. statutory law <legal incompetence> legal presumption>

—compare CONVENTIONAL 1, JUDICIAL 2 e : established by law legal test for mental capacity>

3 : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL legal>

4 : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity :

deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity

—see also EQUITY —compare EQUITABLE

Legitimate

adjective

<snip>

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards legitimate claim of entitlement>

<snip>

"the definitions, which are so close this parsing is rather moot"? For you, maybe; from your own evidence clearly not identical or fully interchangeable. In passing, I suggest you look up "equity" as juxtaposed in "Legal" definition #4.

Like the rest of your tired jibes....... not close - and no cigar.

[cdnvic]

One off-topic ramble and reply to it deleted. Please try to keep to the subject at hand, and stop sniping at each other.

[brahmburgers]

....and please try to make a point.

Decide what you want to say, and articulate it so that others can understand.

Please try to avoid incoherent run-on phrases. They may appear witty and poetic to you as you're writing them, but to readers, it's gobblygook.

[webfact]

Citing principle, Abhisit says no to Thaksin amnesty

By THE NATION

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday dismissed a proposal by an avid supporter of fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra to grant the ex-premier amnesty.

Abhisit said he was acting on grounds of principle, and also feared conflicts might not end, as Thaksin could bring more trouble to the country.

Abhisit reasoned that as prime minister he could not make a deal that involved the self-interest of someone at the expense of the country's interest and future.

General Pallop Pinmanee, a member of the opposition Pheu Thai Party, on Thursday said granting amnesty for Thaksin was the only way to prevent political violence, and added that he feared violence would break out by April.

Asked in the end how the conflicts were going to be resolved since he turned down the proposal from Thaksin's camp, Abhisit said: "Thai society has to choose whether to uphold principle or listen to the one proposing the bargain. As prime minister, I am not going to exchange principle and the country's future for that.''

Abhisit admitted that he was concerned about political movements that might turn violent because conflicts and a gap of understanding were still there. He added that his worries subsided when he thought that most people want the country to move forward. "The government must ensure that everything moves ahead and cannot be careless or complacent,'' he said.

Asked if he were ready to talk to Pheu Thai Party chairman General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh to close the understanding gap, Abhisit said he was ready to do so but the topic of negotiation must not be about anyone's personal interest. "I do not have the right to exchange the country's interest with that of anyone,'' he said.

Asked to respond to House Speaker Chai Chidchob's proposal for a general amnesty, the prime minister said the country should learn from the lesson of 2008, when lawmakers were pushing for laws that were sensitive and against the wishes of most people in the belief they could achieve their desire since they had majority votes. But they were wrong because the country met with a political impasse.

Asked how the government planned to prevent violence, Abhisit said it would maintain law and order and at the same time respect the constitutional rights of protesters.

"I will not let the country turn into a state of anarchy,'' he said, warning against the use of violence. "No one will gain anything if they resort to violence, because Thai society does not accept such practice,'' he said.

The Democrat Party leader also defended himself against criticism that he failed to resolve conflicts, saying he had shown readiness to bring any problems to the negotiating table - be they the debts of the poor, environmental issues or even political problems.

He cited the move to amend the charter by pushing for the establishment of the Reconciliation Committee for Political Reform and Constitution Amendment, but the opposition had turned down the proposal of the committee.

The prime minister defended the government's failure to arrest or extradite Thaksin, saying the former leader kept travelling and stayed in countries that had no extradition treaty with Thailand, except when he went to Cambodia.

Asked to respond to the criticism that some of his Cabinet members, especially those from other coalition parties, were "untouchable", citing Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nop-amornbodi as a case in point, Abhisit said Manit had told him that he was going to publicly announce his decision. He would find out why he had not done so.

Manit has been under pressure to quit his post after Witthaya Kaewparadai, who is from the Democrat Party, resigned as public health minister this week to take responsibility after an investigation committee found evidence of irregularities in the ministry's procurement plans under the Bt86-billion Thai Khemkhaeng stimulus package.

The prime minister vowed to solve problems facing the country to the best of his ability, saying the problems were complicated and had accumulated before the September coup 2006 was staged, so they were not easy to untangle.

-- The Nation 2010/1/2

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[jontom]

"Thailand will always be held hostage by wrongdoers"......ummmmm?

"Abhisit sai the rule of the law must be upheld or else it will cause more problems in the future."

What like getting into power by illegally occupying an airport? By having some unelected military Generals overthrow the Government? How was the law upheld on these occasions,Oxford boy?

You guys who keep pursuing this line make it sound as if Abhisit engineered everything that happened from Sondhi's demonstrations to the coup, so he could get the parliament whose election he also designed to vote him PM, that Abhisit brilliantly designed and directed a complex chain of events, to include deposing the hapless and innocents Samak and Somchai, to culminate in his becoming PM.

Let's talk instead of Thaksin the engineer of the debacle in Pattaya and of Thaksin the engineer of treasonous riots during the national Songkran holiday, among other egotistical and treasonous acts. In fact, let's have Thaksin do tourist promos globally for Thailand!

FYI, the food market in the mall where we shop in the PRC continuously runs Thai government sponsored promos of LOS on its closed circuit tv's positioned around the market, ads that are slick and attractive but which everyone (save two shoppers in particular) ignores. Just yesterday the Chinese owner of the languages school where I worked as director of the department of foreign services asked me during our lunch together why (the Sino-Thai) Thaksin was getting such a bad deal in Thailand. I was pleased to advise her.

Publicus I didnt write the quote that you refer to in your next posting its from line 3 of the article that this thread is about...try reading it next time!

[RustyYellowDodge]

For my part, I hope that amnesty is not offered in any form. The first step for the development of democracy in Thailand is the respect for the rule of law. The rule of law is something that most Thai politicians seem flippant about, and they must be made to serve their sentance, if they don't take the cowards way out and flee the country.

[selftaopath]

I Agree No Amnesty for Him the Law is the Law

I agree that the "law is the law." LOLOLOL but in Lack of Sanctions the norm is most crimes go un punished. Where are the consequences, consistency, law enforcement????? Oh yea how a/b viewing the BIB? Law enforces are they called????? LOLOLOL This may very well be a moot point in the Land of Scams = LOS.

[virtualtraveller]

The poor rule of law in this country (from dodgy police right up to politicians trying weedle their way out of accountability) is Thailand's greatest weakness. PM Abhisit is correct that this is a paramount preceedent that needs to be set. I'd sooner have a country run according to these principals than one run by an 'economic advisor with a dishonest record', my life in Thailand is surrounded by numerous instances where poor law enforcement and corruption make my environment dangerous, unfair, uncomfortable or costly.

You can say that the country was in a more stable and prospering state before the coup, regardless of Thaksin having his 'hand in the cookie jar', but it's not sustainable and contributes to the very dissatisfaction that the reds are whining about now. To say that we should go back to the pre 2006 position because everything was more stable and prosperous then (essentially the main argument of the reds) really is Thailand's downfall in the long term. Ultimately Thaksin and his ilk (including much of the police force sadly) are contemptuous of law enforcement, because it means they have to be more accountable. This is the main crux of the standoff.

For once Thailand is standing up to its crooked leaders and holding them accountable, and a lot of those leaders don't like it and are fighting back. And their only hope of winning is to somehow use the 'popular vote' to gain a mandate to roll back the judicial milestones of the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the fact that a coup was necessary in the first place to derail a juggernaut that was making a mockery of justice, means that they don't entirely hold the moral high ground. Perhaps if the coup leaders were put on trial and given token 2 year sentences, then the red shirts main criticism of illegitimacy would be gone.

I disagree with the several opinions above that this present govt was 'put in power' by the military and the PAD. This is just the sort of blatant mistruths that are bandied around so dangerously at present. Let's be clear, after the coup there was an election and Thaksin's men got into power. The military/elite/whoever accepted it as democracy and we got on with life. There were no red shirt mumblings any longer about coup, rough justice for Thaksin and 'mandarin class interference' etc etc., The PPP had a hand in creating the current crisis by getting caught cheating and ultimately being disbanded (albeit this occurred through a heavy handed electoral fraud law). The PAD DID NOT force the collapse of the last govt, the judiciary did, through a thoroughly deliberated verdict. PM Somchai could have avoid this by dissolving the house before, it was their prerogative, but they chose not to and the splintered PPP failed to form a new coalition. If the military/elite worked behind the scenes to persuade Newin to cross the floor they were not acting any differently to the usual horse trading that goes on in such circumstances and Thaksin would have done exactly the same thing. The present govt is legitimately and legally formed, especially if you consider that the people of Buri Ram and surrounds put their faith in Newin rather than Thaksin. They should at least be given a change (12-18 months) to perform, then be judged, afterall you can't keep changing govts every 6 months because you're out of power and want back in.

[ballache]

well what a pickle the government have got themselves in to, I have no doubt they have no real interest in him serving his term, that's why they let him leave the country in the first place. Of course they have to go through all the motions while Thaksin mocks them from afar with his affiliations to neighbouring countries, and at the the end of the day what he was sentenced for was minor and was politically motivated, when we see others not even get brought to trial for worse offences you have to ask yourself why Thaksin was sent for trial, it was to justify the coup.

The best thing this current mob can do is to dissolve parliament and call an election and let the people decide who they want, of course the dems are scared to do this as they know they will lose, if they were confident they would have called the election by now and be sitting pretty as an elected government for 4 years. they are toothless and not in control for Thailand.

the sad thing is even if an election is called and when Thaksins cohorts get back into power we will have his old adversary back on the street with his yellow shirted mob, followed by the red shirted mob (on this note why is nobody screaming for sondhi to be serving his jail term, he already has convictions now for defamation and further charges for his acts at Government House and the airports).

One thing is for sure, and yes he had his hand in the cookie jar, just as the current lot have, Thailand was more stable and better performing before the 2007 coup, all the coup has done is destabilise the country further.

In my opinion Thailand suffers from not having a big brother, what I mean by this is that it was never colonized so has no role model to slap them on the legs when they continually fuc_k up (I know, I will get all the comments about Burma not being stable etc and I will get accused of being pro Thaksin, I am not, I am pro democracy and believe that the government needs to be voted in, cue the talk now about vote buying as though only one party does it etc).

In my opinion they need to acknowledge privately the conviction is politically motivated, grant the amnesty, let the guy come back and if his party wins power again its because that's what the people want.

Simplistic I know, but the most sensible option to allow thailand to move forward.

ok, cue the yellow shirted farangs in 5.....4......3......2......1

Sorry, but this post reads like it was produced with a mixer - all ingredients at random thrown into it and press the high speed button/...

"...send to trail to justify the coup.."

...so in the posters opinion he didn't do anything wrong?

if you want to quote me and put in quotation marks a comment said by me, at least get the comment right, I am struggling to find "...send to trail to justify the coup.." anywhere in my post. there's a good boy.

now for your question that that in my opinion Thaksin didn't do anything wrong, again if you read my post you will see that I do indeed point out that he had his hand in the cookie jar and also point out that as far as offences go the one he was convicted of was a minor offence and probably less serious that offences committed by others that never see the inside of a court room.

Do us all a favour, read the post, engage brain, think about your response in relation to the post (i.e. make it relevant to the post), don't think about misquoting, then reply. cheers

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

For once Thailand is standing up to its crooked leaders and holding them accountable, and a lot of those leaders don't like it and are fighting back. And their only hope of winning is to somehow use the 'popular vote' to gain a mandate to roll back the judicial milestones of the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the fact that a coup was necessary in the first place to derail a juggernaut that was making a mockery of justice, means that they don't entirely hold the moral high ground. Perhaps if the coup leaders were put on trial and given token 2 year sentences, then the red shirts main criticism of illegitimacy would be gone.

I disagree with the several opinions above that this present govt was 'put in power' by the military and the PAD. This is just the sort of blatant mistruths that are bandied around so dangerously at present. Let's be clear, after the coup there was an election and Thaksin's men got into power. The military/elite/whoever accepted it as democracy and we got on with life. There were no red shirt mumblings any longer about coup, rough justice for Thaksin and 'mandarin class interference' etc etc., The PPP had a hand in creating the current crisis by getting caught cheating and ultimately being disbanded (albeit this occurred through a heavy handed electoral fraud law). The PAD DID NOT force the collapse of the last govt, the judiciary did, through a thoroughly deliberated verdict. PM Somchai could have avoid this by dissolving the house before, it was their prerogative, but they chose not to and the splintered PPP failed to form a new coalition. If the military/elite worked behind the scenes to persuade Newin to cross the floor they were not acting any differently to the usual horse trading that goes on in such circumstances and Thaksin would have done exactly the same thing. The present govt is legitimately and legally formed, especially if you consider that the people of Buri Ram and surrounds put their faith in Newin rather than Thaksin. They should at least be given a change (12-18 months) to perform, then be judged, afterall you can't keep changing govts every 6 months because you're out of power and want back in.

This is one of those times some of us experience when after reading something incisive one considers to himself, "I wish I could have said that," especially in the precise language and terms.   

[badgerbailey]

well what a pickle the government have got themselves in to, I have no doubt they have no real interest in him serving his term, that's why they let him leave the country in the first place. Of course they have to go through all the motions while Thaksin mocks them from afar with his affiliations to neighbouring countries, and at the the end of the day what he was sentenced for was minor and was politically motivated, when we see others not even get brought to trial for worse offences you have to ask yourself why Thaksin was sent for trial, it was to justify the coup.

The best thing this current mob can do is to dissolve parliament and call an election and let the people decide who they want, of course the dems are scared to do this as they know they will lose, if they were confident they would have called the election by now and be sitting pretty as an elected government for 4 years. they are toothless and not in control for Thailand.

the sad thing is even if an election is called and when Thaksins cohorts get back into power we will have his old adversary back on the street with his yellow shirted mob, followed by the red shirted mob (on this note why is nobody screaming for sondhi to be serving his jail term, he already has convictions now for defamation and further charges for his acts at Government House and the airports).

One thing is for sure, and yes he had his hand in the cookie jar, just as the current lot have, Thailand was more stable and better performing before the 2007 coup, all the coup has done is destabilise the country further.

In my opinion Thailand suffers from not having a big brother, what I mean by this is that it was never colonized so has no role model to slap them on the legs when they continually fuc_k up (I know, I will get all the comments about Burma not being stable etc and I will get accused of being pro Thaksin, I am not, I am pro democracy and believe that the government needs to be voted in, cue the talk now about vote buying as though only one party does it etc).

In my opinion they need to acknowledge privately the conviction is politically motivated, grant the amnesty, let the guy come back and if his party wins power again its because that's what the people want.

Simplistic I know, but the most sensible option to allow thailand to move forward.

ok, cue the yellow shirted farangs in 5.....4......3......2......1

Sonthi did serve his time. He was sentenced to 2 months and he did the time.

Are you absolutely sure about that? he was sentenced yes, but as far as i'm aware he has and will never see the inside of a jail cell, just like Thaksin.

[xminator]

The prime ministers statement must come as a shock to many.

Simply keeps the thorn in the governments side in the news when they should be ignoring him.

How can they ignore him when his their power base and only reason to stay in office?

[Cayenne]

Can you please show me the elections he got elected in? As far as I know he was appointed by the winning parties as in any constitutional monarchy. Never ever ever elected as a prime minister. Same like were I am from the Netherlands .... Thaksin furthermore had 2000+ people executed some of whom where innocent. This is pure murder as there was no judicial proces. So far for trias politica ... the basis of a democracy. Furthermore he only finished the airport, and his cronies got rich in the process ....

Waerth

I wouldn't even call Suvarnabhumi airport "finished" during his term...I recall it being opened half-baked, with many toilets still not functioning on opening day. I don't disagree with with you though that many of his cronies including himself got very rich from it.

[LaoPo]

Sonthi did serve his time. He was sentenced to 2 months and he did the time.

..Sonthi did time in jail ?

I think you mean someone else rather than General (Ret.) Sonthi Boonyaratglin who was one of the coupleaders in September 2006 ?

But if you mean Sondhi Limthongkul I would like to know WHEN he spent 2 months in jail (he was convicted but as far as I know the sentence and "time" was never consumed if I may call it that way)

LaoPo

[Nuchanart]

"PM opposed to amnesty for Thaksin"

Does Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva also share his opposition to amnesty granedt to all the coup leaders? Let start from 2006 coup and work backward.

[geriatrickid]

virtualtraveller' date='2010-01-02 11:43:01' post='3238886 makes many valid points but I do object to three of them;

For once Thailand is standing up to its crooked leaders and holding them accountable, and a lot of those leaders don't like it and are fighting back.

Really? If this is so, then please provide reference of one corruption case outside of the Thaksin dossier. Has the government gone after any of the military leaders that allegedly own some of the prime real estate in Pattaya? How about something as simple as nuts and bolts corruption like the tuk tuk crisis on Phuket? Please tell me how so many police and military officials on their modest salaries have amassed such wealth and to date, not one charge of corruption has been brought by the current government? It's all well and good to point at Mr. Thaksin, but I'd vbe more willing to buy into this if someone, anyone was charged.

If the military/elite worked behind the scenes to persuade Newin to cross the floor they were not acting any differently to the usual horse trading that goes on in such circumstances and Thaksin would have done exactly the same thing.

The military should not be involved in politics. If Thaksin has done bad things and should be prosecuted for them, then how can you then use his actions to justify others doing the same wrongful things? Please be consistent. I am equally disgusted by people using their former military ranks when speaking on behalf of Mr. Thaksin. There is no justification whatsoever for the military interfering. If they claim to be above it all and answer only to his HM, then there is an even greater reason to stay out of politics.

Reference is made to a judicial decision that set the stage for the fall of Mr. Thaksin's party. I say to you that the perception is that the judicial decision was politically motivated and not delivered in a neutral manner. The judiciary must be above politics and I do not believe that was the case here.

[LaoPo]

virtualtraveller' date='2010-01-02 11:43:01' post='3238886 makes many valid points but I do object to three of them;

For once Thailand is standing up to its crooked leaders and holding them accountable, and a lot of those leaders don't like it and are fighting back.

Really? If this is so, then please provide reference of one corruption case outside of the Thaksin dossier. Has the government gone after any of the military leaders that allegedly own some of the prime real estate in Pattaya? How about something as simple as nuts and bolts corruption like the tuk tuk crisis on Phuket? Please tell me how so many police and military officials on their modest salaries have amassed such wealth and to date, not one charge of corruption has been brought by the current government? It's all well and good to point at Mr. Thaksin, but I'd vbe more willing to buy into this if someone, anyone was charged.

I couldn't agree more.

More than 30 years ago I met 2 very hi-so Military men in Phuket (everybody was bowing and waiing: vely big man sir....vely big man in militaly...), traveling south in the weekends, to Phuket to see their families (wives and children) who owned substantial real estate and hotel businesses on Patong Beach.

....more than 30 years ago....

I've never seen any sign of any military brought to justice who did time in jail for corruption; anybody ?

But...hey, maybe they were born wealthy and found it attractive to join the army ?

LaoPo

[Publicus]

virtualtraveller' date='2010-01-02 11:43:01' post='3238886 makes many valid points but I do object to three of them;

For once Thailand is standing up to its crooked leaders and holding them accountable, and a lot of those leaders don't like it and are fighting back.

Really? If this is so, then please provide reference of one corruption case outside of the Thaksin dossier. Has the government gone after any of the military leaders that allegedly own some of the prime real estate in Pattaya? How about something as simple as nuts and bolts corruption like the tuk tuk crisis on Phuket? Please tell me how so many police and military officials on their modest salaries have amassed such wealth and to date, not one charge of corruption has been brought by the current government? It's all well and good to point at Mr. Thaksin, but I'd vbe more willing to buy into this if someone, anyone was charged.

I couldn't agree more.

More than 30 years ago I met 2 very hi-so Military men in Phuket (everybody was bowing and waiing: vely big man sir....vely big man in militaly...), traveling south in the weekends, to Phuket to see their families (wives and children) who owned substantial real estate and hotel businesses on Patong Beach.

....more than 30 years ago....

I've never seen any sign of any military brought to justice who did time in jail for corruption; anybody ?

But...hey, maybe they were born wealthy and found it attractive to join the army ?

LaoPo

Hear, Hear!!

These are valid points which I would commend as being well presented, to include in this instance the often persuasive if not compelling perspective of time.  

With due respect of the points made, validated by their persistently demonstrated existence over considerable time, I still get nervous because of the divisions of society during the past five or so years and concerning the immediate future as 'promised' by gangsters and other insurrectionists who continually take the tack that Dr. LTC Thaksin deserves to be returned to power and money because he was 'singled out' as it were.

The tit for tat talk, which is not presented in the above posts and is apart from them, that some can riot because one day not long ago tanks rolled is not the basis of an argument to change the government. It rather is a syllogism and worse, politically menacing.  

Yeah Thai elites are kleptos and yeah only one particularly high profile corrupt guy got it in the end, but we cannot claim that returning Thaksin to power, authority and money rectifies or remedies anything, much less would, could or necessarily would result in changing the habits and age old behaviours of the permantly Thai kelptocrats of whom Thaksin is a recidivist prominent one .

[LaoPo]

Yeah Thai elites are kleptos and yeah only one particularly high profile corrupt guy got it in the end, but we cannot claim that returning Thaksin to power, authority and money rectifies or remedies anything, much less would, could or necessarily would result in changing the habits and age old behaviours of the permantly Thai kelptocrats of whom Thaksin is a recidivist prominent one .

1. I don't think anyone here said or claimed that a return of Thaksin would result in changing habits. Thaksin is just a stone-throw in Thai history. I wish some members could let "Thaksin" go and proceed with more important things in Thai life and society, other than the day-to-day bashing and flaming. Maybe some forgot but Thaksin was removed by the coup in September 2006; that's more than 3 years ago

2. The fraud system is drained into the bloodstream, and even worse, brains of the hi-so Thai; it's considered normal and even the Thai equivalent of Joe the Plumber is used to corruption...if the Boss does it, why not me?

ps to Publicus: I don't mind the spelling errors

LaoPo

[brahmburgers]

Sad but true. It's a given, that corruption is accepted within the Thai way of getting things done - with officials, with contracts, with promotions, etc.

The reason Thaksin's name keeps getting bandied around in the same conversations (and yes, I know it's a stone drag to keep seeing/hearing his name) ....is because, for the time he was in power, he was the poster boy for the advantages of corruption.

Thai politicians and business people before during and after him have been involved with corruption, but Thaksin burnished it - even made light of it. Just a week before the news broke of him not paying a satang in tax on the giant AIS/Temasak deal, he was joking with reporters about how he was 'just a regular guy, not a rich person, as people think.'

At the time, I was a lecturer at a Thai U, and was saddened by the fact that all my students were influenced, to one degree or another (no pun intended) by their charismatic PM. Yes, they'd heard that corruption was not good, but then they look around them and see the richest and most powerful people are those who gained success by wheeling and dealing behind the scenes - with at least some corruption in the process.

Young folks in particular, need people with admirable qualities to look up to. To me, that was one of the darkest legacies of the Thaksin years: The bad example he set for Thai youngsters. Put another way: He reinforced bad character traits.

Edited January 3, 2010 by brahmburgers

[LaoPo]

At the time, I was a lecturer at a Thai U, and was saddened by the fact that all my students were influenced, to one degree or another (no pun intended) by their charismatic PM. Yes, they'd heard that corruption was not good, but then they look around them and see the richest and most powerful people are those who gained success by wheeling and dealing behind the scenes - with at least some corruption in the process.

Young folks in particular, need people with admirable qualities to look up to. To me, that was one of the darkest legacies of the Thaksin years: The bad example he set for Thai youngsters. Put another way: He reinforced bad character traits.

That's a way of putting it.

You can't blame young students for being influenced and students have a goal in life; becoming successful, whatever their study.

Let's not forget that students do NOT see corruption (on such a large scale, their fathers and uncles are committing) just the small daily corruption which everyone in Thailand is used to.

They only learned about Thaksin being -possibly- corrupt just before and after the coup in September 2006 and that was a time when many, including the hi-so, were confused about WHO and WHAT Thaksin was and stood for. Let's not forget that the majority of the population does not live in BKK and is not very interested in politics.

Thaksin made the mistake that his star started shining too bright in corruption land as well as another important point I'm not allowed to talk about here...and I regret that, but understandable under the circumstances.

I don't think too many of the hi-so families made a problem of his way of doing corrupt business.

After all, they were and are part of that system and don't forget there are quite a few more $ Billionaires and very wealthy families in Thailand and I wouldn't like to put my hands in the fireplace for them, but he made the mistake all power players make...thinking he was untouchable being a PM and businessman at the same time. He thought the powers he had were enough to protect him.

He forgot about the Generals when he was in New York in September 2006.

The point you're making is correct but nevertheless a very sensitive point and also a very confusing point for your students as those same students you're talking about had a very important family name in their minds:

Shinawatra

Many of the present TV members have no idea how important that Thai name was and is to the normal day-to-day people in Thailand apart from now knowing that Thaksin also has that name.

The Shinawatra family name was and is a synonym for Power, Important, Rich and Respect and Upper Class.

The Shinawatra family name (Shinawat amongst Thai) is very important and famous already since generations.

For a short while I was doing some business with the Shinawatra family already some 30 years ago where there were 2 factories in Bangkok, the Silk business and the Cotton business and both were run by one of 2 sisters Lady Shinawatra. The cotton business (I did business with) was run by one sister, married to a Frenchman who she met in Paris during her study there.

I won't mention their names since I do not know their family relationship to the ex-PM and I haven't been in contact anymore with the family since over 25 years.

But every single taxi driver, hotel lobby assistant, restaurant waitress...everybody knew the name Shinawat and was spoken out with the utmost respect.

Doors were opened when the Shinawat family name was mentioned; When I was stopped at the airport and interrogated for a few hours because of a non-stamp arrival error in my passport I was released immediately the moment I showed the Shinawat company papers.

Why am I telling you all this ?

Because to try and explain how important the Shinawat name was and still is in day-to-day life in Thailand and also to explain how confused the Thai population (and your students) must have felt about the Thaksin era since the Shinawat name was and still IS connected in the whole situation.

The latter include the hi-so families.

The story hasn't ended yet since much of the story is out of our views; we only know what's in the -biased or not- newspapers.

LaoPo

Edited January 4, 2010 by LaoPo

[Rinrada]

Prime Minister Abhisit Opposed To Amnesty For Thaksin

now that he has said it ...only a matter of Time...innit

[Artisi]

Prime Minister Abhisit Opposed To Amnesty For Thaksin

now that he has said it ...only a matter of Time...innit

A correct decision.

[virtualtraveller]

Reference is made to a judicial decision that set the stage for the fall of Mr. Thaksin's party. I say to you that the perception is that the judicial decision was politically motivated and not delivered in a neutral manner. The judiciary must be above politics and I do not believe that was the case here.

Sorry, but there's a lot of people who would disagree with this. It's easy enough in the circumstances to call the verdicts against Thaksin and the PPP etc politically motivated but I believe this judiciary is a lot more balanced than predecessors in recent years, besides which they are under enormous pressure to appear to make a fair decision and to this end they went to considerable lengths to deliberate on the evidence and took hours to read the verdict and justify it to the people. As far as I know, no human rights organisations or international observers came out to criticise these verdicts. However, we are in a country were everything is 'influenced' one way or another which means that when a powerful and popular person like Thaksin fails to gain a favourable verdict it comes as a shock to many, who subsequently don't want to recognise the outcome, and call it 'politically motivated'. The only thing political about it, is that Thaksin and the PPP no longer enjoyed favouritism from the judiciary or immunity, so there was political fallout from the decision.

At the heart of this entire crisis is the fact that no one in Thailand has the humility to accept justice, and it's a shame that those who are now falling foul are citing double standards and political interference to try and justify their exoneration. Yes, there are plenty of others that deserve to have justice to served to them (coup organisers and all) but we really should not accept that wrongdoers deserve forgiveness because they've been singled out. It's a shameful part of Thailand.

[junglist]

Many say No Amnesty I think it should be No Mercy. Seppuku (hara-kiri) for those who have insulted the pride of the nation and the name of his family.

If this is to harsh for you then simply if you love something you must let it go if it loves you it will return.

You pick

[bendejo]

Wouldn't it have been great if Dick Nixon turned international fugitive in the same way, hopping between Third World shitholes seeking asylum and buying passports?

I think the ones who are really having a laugh are Taksin's fortune tellers.

[geriatrickid]

Many say No Amnesty I think it should be No Mercy. Seppuku (hara-kiri) for those who have insulted the pride of the nation and the name of his family.

If this is to harsh for you then simply if you love something you must let it go if it loves you it will return.

You pick

Oh my. Does this mean that you expect people to put aside Kuan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy? You might have a lot of unhappy lottery players on your hands.

Instead of offering a Bollywood theme, especially since I've never been fond of the singing, I suggest you ponder this;

ความประมาท - underestimating the negativity of things to come. Your position is just that.

What's up with referencing pride of the nation? In politics, Pride comes before the downfall. Chew on that.

How about the military generals just make some more room again in the sandbox for Mr. Thaksin and everyone play nicely. there's lots of profits to spread around, that is unless there's something about the Thai economy that isn't being made public.