Lobbying And Unrest Ahead Of Thaksin Ruling Futile

[webfact]

FEB 26 - JUDGEMENT DAY

Efforts to sway court 'will fail'

By The Nation on Sunday

Published on January 17, 2010

Charter-drafter Prasong says lobbying, unrest ahead of Thaksin ruling futile

Fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters might try to lobby, pressure or strike deals with the Supreme Court to rule in his favour in the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case, but they will not succeed, political observers say.

Prasong Sunsiri, a drafter of the 2007 Constitution, said yesterday that even if Thaksin attempted to incite unrest and force the political situation to breaking point, he could not coerce judges into deciding for the defendant.

The ex-premier could mobilise his supporters to create turmoil during two periods - from now until judgement day, and after that if his assets are transferred to the state - he said.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict on February 26, almost certainly with defendant Thaksin in absentia.

Nipit Intarasombat, a Democrat Party MP for Phatthalung and the party's chief legal specialist, said Thaksin's drive to tip the outcome to his side would be futile because he believes in the integrity of all nine judges.

He said the judges would not know the court's verdict until they meet on the morning of February 26. Each judge will submit his personal verdict on that day and the majority verdict will be written afterwards. This way the verdict will not be leaked, he said.

He dismissed a comment by Payap, a younger brother of Thaksin, that an adverse ruling would send the country towards catastrophe.

"The country and the system will not be destroyed by one man," he said.

"Whoever believes that if Thaksin's assets are seized, the country will be thrown into civil war, is stupid. Only foolish people allow themselves to be used. I want the red shirts to use their common sense. They should not act like minors who need guidance," he said.

If the court finds Thaksin is unusually rich, the red shirts should not accuse the court of employing double standards because when the Constitution Court ruled that Thaksin was not guilty in his assets-concealment case, Thaksin's supporters praised the judges, he said.

Violence could be triggered on any day leading up to February 26 to pressure judges before the verdict is reached, he said. Once the case is closed, it would be hard to bring about changes.

The red shirts believe they successfully cornered Election Commission chairman Apichart Sukhagganond, who has yet to decide on the dissolution case of the Democrat Party, into making a decision to their liking after Apichart had to be hospitalised for high blood pressure, he said.

Reports that Thaksin had bargained to have only part of his assets taken by the state in return for him not instigating any opposition could come true if the Pheu Thai Party were able to push an amnesty bill through Parliament in three readings in 40 days, Nipit added.

-- The Nation 2010-01-17

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[salty]

Now where did I leave that lunch box?

[virtualtraveller]

This is what the whole crisis is about really isn't it. You have large group of people in this country who are contemptuous about law and order. They really believe that court verdicts are things that can and should be influenced by large scale protest. You can't blame them I suppose since historically this has been 'the order of things in Thailand'.

But they just don't get it, the whole stand against Thaksin is related to the general public's insistence on justice being upheld for a change. Sure there's double standards all across Thailand but it should not be used as an excuse to let these people off the hook. Courts shouldn't influenced by a large mob coming to aid of one man's guilt, if the protests were a large group demonstrating their dissatisfaction about, say, a verdict on environmental issue in their neighbourhood then it would be appropriate for the judges to taken into consideration the impact on their lives.

It seems that the Thaksin/UDD strategy is to demonstrate the anarchy that is possible as a result of this case, in the hope the judges will be lenient or favourable, which is patently wrong and has no part in the future of Thailand.

Alternatively, some might argue that the judges will err on the side of caution and favour a ruling that seizes part of the assets, while indefinitely impounding the portion that should be rightfully returned to him - they might be influenced into believing that any immediate return of any money to Thaksin would be dangerous - given what he could achieve politically with it.

[jayboy]

This is what the whole crisis is about really isn't it. You have large group of people in this country who are contemptuous about law and order. They really believe that court verdicts are things that can and should be influenced by large scale protest.

But they just don't get it, the whole stand against Thaksin is related to the general public's insistence on justice being upheld for a change. Sure there's double standards all across Thailand but it should not be used as an excuse to let these people off the hook. Courts shouldn't influenced by a large mob coming to aid of one man's guilt, if the protests were a large group demonstrating their dissatisfaction about, say, a verdict on environmental issue in their neighbourhood then it would be appropriate for the judges to taken into consideration the impact on their lives.

I'm not quite sure how on one hand you can inveigh against justice being influenced by large scale protest and on the other speak approvingly of the general public insisting on justice being upheld for a change.

I agree with the view that in this case the courts should not be influenced by red protests.Justice should be blind or at least even handed.I'm quite sceptical about the view expressed in other posts that justice should somehow reflect the mood in the country at large, whether supporting Thasin or those that oppose him.Indeed sometimes justice is served in standing up to the prevailing national sentiment.What is important is respect for the law itself.It would be naive to pretend that the courts in any country are immune from external influences in interpreting the law.Nevertheless with a panel of men with independence and integrity justice can be served, albeit imperfectly.

The concern in Thailand is frankly not justice being influenced by popuar sentiment let alone street mobs, but its control by other more powerful interests given the elite's failure to thwart the popular will in other ways including a coup and a rigged constitution.

[geriatrickid]

Although the premise of the article is that one should let the courts do their job, it seems to me that the author is more concerned about the impact of such protests upon the possible decision. In plain language, someone is scared.

I agree that the judiciary should be independent. Unfortunately, I believe that is not always the case in Thailand and that many of the charges brought against politicians are politically motivated, rigged and pre-judged.

If there was truly a concern for justice, then a full judicial inquiry should be convened with a guarantee of true judicial independence, where the judges and prosecutors were not interfered with. The mandate would be to go after all corruption at all levels. I do not believe that is presently possible. As a result, any politically related judicial decision will always be subject to protest and dispute. I think the Thaksin's supporters would have a tough time protesting if PAD members, police, military officers and current government members faced the same judicial investigations. Perhaps all of these people once condemned to prison could learn to get along as they spent a few years behind bars.

[givenall]

It is interesting to see that most of people in the street don’t even give a shi…. About what is going on with Mr. T money. Easy come and easy go

[Credo]

Too bad they haven't heard about an independent prosecutor. It's one way of moving it a little further from politics.

[RKASA]

This decision was made before the coup. The delay is just for effect.

[animatic]

Scared that violence will be used and cause senseless injuries and deaths and STILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

It sends the message that the violence will be a waste of Thailand's resources,

and to not try it be cause it won't work..

It is elite vs elite here. Make no mistake;

Rapacious modern nouveau riche elite vs classic chinese reinvesting and saving elite.

Wall street in parody vs centuries old Asian clan building and protecting.

One is going along creating jobs and raising the standard of living,

and no doubt making profits at the same time. But not at the expense of growth.

The other is in the dock about going way over-board in making profits,

at the expense of most others of ALL classes. And threatening extreme violence

using an underclass as a blunt expendable weapon, over getting to keep those profits,

that he has been blatantly and unapologetically caught taking.

Yes, Thaksin thought the rule of law could be avoided because he was powerful in the old world sense,

but he came to power and stepped on a multitude of influential toes, big time, in a new world sense

and that has cost him greatly, in a world in transition. He moved too fast too far and above all too HARD.

He is paying the price for his precipitousness.

Edited January 17, 2010 by animatic

[Valentine]

The shoe is now on the other foot. Mr Thaksin's supporters conveniently forget the dodgy decision in his assets concealment case.

[Ricardo]

Let's just hope that the court is seen to deliver a fair decision, and isn't swayed by this pressure, from DL's family or the red-shirts or Noppadope, or indeed the government or anyone else.

Justice must be seen to be done !

[jayboy]

It is elite vs elite here. Make no mistake;

Rapacious modern nouveau riche elite vs classic chinese reinvesting and saving elite.

Wall street in parody vs centuries old Asian clan building and protecting.

One is going along creating jobs and raising the standard of living,

and no doubt making profits at the same time. But not at the expense of growth.

Yes, Thaksin thought the rule of law could be avoided because he was powerful in the old world sense,

but he came to power and stepped on a multitude of influential toes, big time, in a new world sense

and that has cost him greatly, in a world in transition. He moved too fast too far and above all too HARD.

He is paying the price for his precipitousness.

I don't have a quarrel with the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph.

Nor do I disagree that this battle is elite versus elite.But your thumbnail analysis of the two elites is wholly inaccurate.The elite that fears and hates Thaksin has in its corporate manifestation very few positive features.Monopolist, anti-globalization, inefficient and essentially lazy old comprador style.Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself - another in the series of ironies - represents the new interconnected world where greedy and inefficient monopolists have no future.Unless you grasp this -and clearly you don't -your interpretation of contemporary Thai history just becomes a cartoon like Thaksin bashing.Entertaining and satisfying (because Thaksin positively cries out to have his bottom kicked by any reasonable man) but ultimately meaningless.

[InterestedObserver]

If Thaksin is found guilty by the Supreme Court, the amount of assets declared by him when he took office should be returned to him, and Thaksin sent on his merry way.

[RKASA]

If Thaksin is found guilty by the Supreme Court, the amount of assets declared by him when he took office should be returned to him, and Thaksin sent on his merry way.

Won't happen, its political and cutting off Thaksin from his power (i.e. money) is seen as better then shooting him, which was their first choice. Justice would have turned the coup out as it was a violation of the constitution that they also disposed of. Your working with the wrong people if you want justice and I am not saying Thaksin is, he is just like them. The problem is many will not accept that they are also just like him.

[Publicus]

This is what the whole crisis is about really isn't it. You have large group of people in this country who are contemptuous about law and order. They really believe that court verdicts are things that can and should be influenced by large scale protest.

But they just don't get it, the whole stand against Thaksin is related to the general public's insistence on justice being upheld for a change. Sure there's double standards all across Thailand but it should not be used as an excuse to let these people off the hook. Courts shouldn't influenced by a large mob coming to aid of one man's guilt, if the protests were a large group demonstrating their dissatisfaction about, say, a verdict on environmental issue in their neighbourhood then it would be appropriate for the judges to taken into consideration the impact on their lives.

I'm not quite sure how on one hand you can inveigh against justice being influenced by large scale protest and on the other speak approvingly of the general public insisting on justice being upheld for a change.

I agree with the view that in this case the courts should not be influenced by red protests.Justice should be blind or at least even handed.I'm quite sceptical about the view expressed in other posts that justice should somehow reflect the mood in the country at large, whether supporting Thasin or those that oppose him.Indeed sometimes justice is served in standing up to the prevailing national sentiment.What is important is respect for the law itself.It would be naive to pretend that the courts in any country are immune from external influences in interpreting the law.Nevertheless with a panel of men with independence and integrity justice can be served, albeit imperfectly.

The concern in Thailand is frankly not justice being influenced by popuar sentiment let alone street mobs, but its control by other more powerful interests given the elite's failure to thwart the popular will in other ways including a coup and a rigged constitution.

Courts, judges and an independent judicial system do define themselves in part by standing up as necessary to prevailing public opinion and sentiment. Concomitantly, courts must have credibility among the body politic, so courts cannot long stand apart from the prevailing mood of the public, nor can judges long make arbitrary rulings without resulting consequence. These principles comprise a core reason the Anglo system of jurisprudence relies on a balance of case precedent (stare decicis) and contemporary standards. Contemporary standards also require that judges up to the highest courts be women, an expectation of society unheard of until Pres Ronald Reagan shattered that glass ceiling in the early 1980s. 

Contemporary standards, for example, are being applied by numerous state courts in the US with respect to gay marriage, whether by a direct case law interpretation of a state's constitution (original jurisdiction) or because of laws enacted by a state's legislature either pro or con. Gay marriage is being recognized in the jurisprudence of contemporary times - not as of 100 years ago or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Gay marriage rulings by courts haven't had to reverse precedent as there just hadn't been many precedents for courts to consider. As another example, the same is true of the 1954 unanimous ruling of the US Supreme Court that racially segregated schools are unconstitutional - the ruling especially impacted one region of the country, the South, but had to reverse directly and radically the 1896 Supreme Court ruling (Plessy v Fergusen) that it was not (which is why it was important the 1954 ruling was done unanimously).     

Half a world away in Thailand, precedent is of little consequence in a court's deliberations and to farang and Thais alike the vital matter of how judges become judges is murky and little known or understood. Regardless, we do know that the Thai judges who comprise these panels of men are of the elite sociopolitical and socioeconomic classes so we can expect such judges to rule accordingly. To get an idea of what 'accordingly' usually means we need to look at who the judges are, the processes by which they became judges and who their sponsor(s) may have been. We know further that the judiciary will rule from the elitist perspective and in the context of the present prevailing circumstances, that the judges will rule regardless of what a militant segment of the population may think, believe or do. 

Meanwhile, as TiT, be on the lookout for a man entering the courthouse carrying a cakebox. 

[InterestedObserver]

If Thaksin is found guilty by the Supreme Court, the amount of assets declared by him when he took office should be returned to him, and Thaksin sent on his merry way.

Won't happen, its political and cutting off Thaksin from his power (i.e. money) is seen as better then shooting him, which was their first choice. Justice would have turned the coup out as it was a violation of the constitution that they also disposed of. Your working with the wrong people if you want justice and I am not saying Thaksin is, he is just like them. The problem is many will not accept that they are also just like him.

Are you saying that the Thai Supreme Court is not fair and impartial?

[pewterly]

If Thaksin is found guilty by the Supreme Court, the amount of assets declared by him when he took office should be returned to him, and Thaksin sent on his merry way.

Do you think he would accept that scenario?

76,000,000,000 Baht (frozen assets)

- 575,000,000 Baht (Thaksin's declared assets upon assuming office)

75,425,000,000 Baht (seized and transferred to the National Treasury)

[animatic]

Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself

- another in the mothers of all of ironies -

represents the new interconnected world where Greedy and Efficient monopolists TRY TO RULE THE FUTURE.

Unless you grasp this -and clearly you don't -your interpretation of contemporary Thai history

just becomes a cartoon like bashing at a brick wall.

Edited January 17, 2010 by animatic

[Credo]

Not surprising. Most things in Thailand seem 'to fail.'

[jayboy]

Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself

- another in the mothers of all of ironies -

represents the new interconnected world where Greedy and Efficient monopolists TRY TO RULE THE FUTURE.

Unless you grasp this -and clearly you don't -your interpretation of contemporary Thai history

just becomes a cartoon like bashing at a brick wall.

Is this meant to be a coherent response to my post, simply copying the language I used almost word for word? It's difficult furthermore to understand beyond this puerile approach what your point is at all.If you are able to put your thoughts together more logically I will attempt a considered response.But frankly you seem to be in over your head.Probably best just sticking to saying nasty things about Thaksin which doesn't demand contextual understanding and isn't too taxing on the intellect.

[hhgz]

"As another example, the same is true of the 1954 unanimous ruling of the US Supreme Court that racially segregated schools are unconstitutional - the ruling especially impacted one region of the country, the South, but had to reverse directly and radically the 1896 Supreme Court ruling (Plessy v Fergusen) that it was not (which is why it was important the 1954 ruling was done unanimously)."

As with many other postings, this has absolutely nothing to do with Thailand.

[scorecard]

It is interesting to see that most of people in the street don’t even give a shi…. About what is going on with Mr. T money. Easy come and easy go

Don't give a shi... is a little off the reality.

Most Thais in the street are occupied by worrying a lot about survival, and unfortunately don't have the luxury of thinking about much else.

[scorecard]

If Thaksin is found guilty by the Supreme Court, the amount of assets declared by him when he took office should be returned to him, and Thaksin sent on his merry way.

Do you think he would accept that scenario?

76,000,000,000 Baht (frozen assets)

- 575,000,000 Baht (Thaksin's declared assets upon assuming office)

75,425,000,000 Baht (seized and transferred to the National Treasury)

Is it really that simple?

Some would argue that the 'fortune' he declared when he entered parliament was gained by dubious means - by gaining a monopoly telecom licence (from the leader of a previous coup, and whilst the same coup leaders were controlling Thailand) when nobody even knew such a licence was available and there was no bidding announcement or process.

On a different point, does anybody know whether the judgment to be handed down on 26 Feb is:

- A decision whether to hold or return his 'fortune' or perhaps some split,

or

- Will there also, if he's found guilty, be a punishment as well as confiscation?

[animatic]

Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself

- another in the mothers of all of ironies -

represents the new interconnected world where Greedy and Efficient monopolists TRY TO RULE THE FUTURE.

Unless you grasp this - and clearly you don't - your interpretation of contemporary Thai history

just becomes a cartoon like bashing at a brick wall.

Is this meant to be a coherent response to my post, simply copying the language I used almost word for word? It's difficult furthermore to understand beyond this puerile approach what your point is at all.If you are able to put your thoughts together more logically I will attempt a considered response.But frankly you seem to be in over your head.Probably best just sticking to saying nasty things about Thaksin which doesn't demand contextual understanding and isn't too taxing on the intellect.

Well now you can see how condescending your post seemed from the other side of the argument.

And your follow up is argument ad hominum. Attack me and not the point.

So you haven't furthered your cause a jot.

And even if you don't like my post it did make a point on subject,

the fate of Thaksin and why Lobbying won't work.

Edited January 17, 2010 by animatic

[slimdog]

Some would argue that the 'fortune' he declared when he entered parliament was gained by dubious means - by gaining a monopoly telecom licence (from the leader of a previous coup, and whilst the same coup leaders were controlling Thailand) when nobody even knew such a licence was available and there was no bidding announcement or process.

AIS got the telecom licence from TOT on March 27th 1990 almost a year prior to the Coup d'etat of 1991.

The concession became vacant after the previous holder (Siam Cement) forfeited on the concession.

On a different point, does anybody know whether the judgment to be handed down on 26 Feb is:

- A decision whether to hold or return his 'fortune' or perhaps some split,

or

- Will there also, if he's found guilty, be a punishment as well as confiscation?

This is a civil case, there are no penalties other than assets devolving to the state. The criminal cases, EXIM, TOT & Shinsat have been filed separately. Bearing that in mind, the court will have no interest whether an action taken by Thaksin was legal or illegal, only whether the assets of him, his former wife or minor children increased in value as a direct consequence of these actions. This could be in the form of either an increase in share value, or higher dividends.

For this reason the essence of the case is to prove that Thaksin, his former wife or minor children had a stake in Shin corporation during the time he was in office*.

* Do not confuse this with the asset declaration case, as that concerned concealing assets in 1997

[LaoPo]

1. It is elite vs elite here. Make no mistake;

2. Rapacious modern nouveau riche elite vs classic chinese reinvesting and saving elite.

1. agree; no doubt about it.

2. who do you consider to be Modern Nouveay Riche Elite versus Classic Thai/Chinese (not Chinese*) re-investing and Saving Elite ?

Let me help you: who would you consider to be the first and the latter ?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/85/thaila...chest_Rank.html

I'm curious, as the vast majority on this list is Thai/Chinese and were already born (in Thailand) in wealthy families (and became even richer), including Thaksin's family who were already rich 3 generations ago.

* I want to be politically correct; one doesn't speak about President Obama as an African but as an African/American or American/African, no ?

LaoPo

[Puccini]

If Thaksin is found guilty by the Supreme Court, the amount of assets declared by him when he took office should be returned to him, and Thaksin sent on his merry way.

With a guilty verdict, Thaksin's assets should be dealt with in accordance with the law, ie the court ruling will probably give directives accordingly, not based on something a poster in this forum has written. Now, if the poster in question would care to cite from the relevant law, this would make useful reading.

[Jingthing]

Has anyone mentioned this one -- what about the MECHANICS of returning any of his money, if they do decide to do that. How can a fugutive on the run be authorized to accept money. Shouldn't he be mandated under the law to return to Thailand (and arrest) to collect his monies? Yes, I know money can be wired or placed in an account, but it sounds odd to me to return money to a fugitive. Whether you think he "deserves" to be a fugitive or not is not the point, he is one under Thai law.

[animatic]

A useful cut off date for Dynastic styles would be age 70 on that Forbes list,

Though certainly not an absolute, since there are several extention generations following family style.

And you may notice how few of them are actual household words around Thailand,

biggest exceptions being Shinawatra, Malee and Charoen of CP fortune.

Most keep pretty low profiles.

Edited January 17, 2010 by animatic

[Publicus]

Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself

- another in the mothers of all of ironies -

represents the new interconnected world where Greedy and Efficient monopolists TRY TO RULE THE FUTURE.

Unless you grasp this - and clearly you don't - your interpretation of contemporary Thai history

just becomes a cartoon like bashing at a brick wall.

Is this meant to be a coherent response to my post, simply copying the language I used almost word for word? It's difficult furthermore to understand beyond this puerile approach what your point is at all.If you are able to put your thoughts together more logically I will attempt a considered response.But frankly you seem to be in over your head.Probably best just sticking to saying nasty things about Thaksin which doesn't demand contextual understanding and isn't too taxing on the intellect.

Well now you can see how condescending your post seemed from the other side of the argument.

And your follow up is argument ad hominum. Attack me and not the point.

So you haven't furthered your cause a jot.

And even if you don't like my post it did make a point on subject,

the fate of Thaksin and why Lobbying won't work.

Hear, Hear!! 

Ad hominem indeed.   

Let's everyone work diligently to raise the level of discourse to that which allows members to rise to the level of attempting a considered response.