Thailand Braces For Explosive Thaksin Verdict

[neverdie]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Ahhh Gary, thanks for the laugh big fella, 'verdict' and 'fair' in one sentence..... , oh of course it would depend greatly on whos 'fairness' meter you were using to measure this, wouldnt it?

Still, imagine sorting your way through the tonnes of BS paperwork and trying to work out where the "TRUTH" lies!

[SomTumTiger]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Ahhh Gary, thanks for the laugh big fella, 'verdict' and 'fair' in one sentence..... , oh of course it would depend greatly on whos 'fairness' meter you were using to measure this, wouldnt it?

Still, imagine sorting your way through the tonnes of BS paperwork and trying to work out where the "TRUTH" lies!

I think Gary is saying that Thaksin should only give back the money that he stole, while in office. Thats fair right? After all, when the thief steals your wallet, if he gives it back, all is forgiven right? But T doesn't want to to give it back. He is a true believer. He believes it was his right to manipulate the telecom laws in Thailand to allow is own company to grow and produce record profits. It is that fact, more than any other, that boggles the mind. He actually thinks he hasn't done anything wrong. He's the victim!!!!! Cry me a river.

[neverdie]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Ahhh Gary, thanks for the laugh big fella, 'verdict' and 'fair' in one sentence..... , oh of course it would depend greatly on whos 'fairness' meter you were using to measure this, wouldnt it?

Still, imagine sorting your way through the tonnes of BS paperwork and trying to work out where the "TRUTH" lies!

I think Gary is saying that Thaksin should only give back the money that he stole, while in office. Thats fair right? After all, when the thief steals your wallet, if he gives it back, all is forgiven right? But T doesn't want to to give it back. He is a true believer. He believes it was his right to manipulate the telecom laws in Thailand to allow is own company to grow and produce record profits. It is that fact, more than any other, that boggles the mind. He actually thinks he hasn't done anything wrong. He's the victim!!!!! Cry me a river.

Of course, STT, and naturally the convicted was caught and convicted of the first crime he ever committed, which is pretty much the standard case worldwide, i mean lets face it Jails are full of innocent & or people that only did it once.

[cyberskin]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Is it right for the state to return any sum of money to a convicted criminal who remains on the run?

Surely, if any money is to be returned, a condition of that should be him coming back to face justice.

It's pretty easy to convict anyone of anything if they're not there to defend themselves. Just point your finger at a chair and say "How do you answer to the charges of corruption, money laundering, etc?" When the chair doesn't answer back you say "See, Guilty as charged!". And just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they lose all legal rights.

[neverdie]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Is it right for the state to return any sum of money to a convicted criminal who remains on the run?

Surely, if any money is to be returned, a condition of that should be him coming back to face justice.

It's pretty easy to convict anyone of anything if they're not there to defend themselves. Just point your finger at a chair and say "How do you answer to the charges of corruption, money laundering, etc?" When the chair doesn't answer back you say "See, Guilty as charged!". And just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they lose all legal rights.

No, too right, he has the right to be in jail & have his assets confiscated by the crown......and thats about it.....ohhh and a bowl of fishhead soup occassionally ....fee haircuts, nice set of ankle chains....should i go on?

[SomTumTiger]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Is it right for the state to return any sum of money to a convicted criminal who remains on the run?

Surely, if any money is to be returned, a condition of that should be him coming back to face justice.

It's pretty easy to convict anyone of anything if they're not there to defend themselves. Just point your finger at a chair and say "How do you answer to the charges of corruption, money laundering, etc?" When the chair doesn't answer back you say "See, Guilty as charged!". And just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they lose all legal rights.

So, Thaksin is the victim? The man who ran from a court verdict? I'm playing the world's smallest violin, just for him.

[tooninthai]

One thing the Thaksin government did that many may not know about was give 'loans' to people to be able to educate themselves and in one case it does impact on many of us who ever need to visit a hospital.

For example he gave loans to poorer students to attend medical school to learn how to become nursing assistants and for those same people to be able, in the future, to go on to become nurses. A 6 month course at med training school was 40,000 Baht. The Thaksin government loaned the students the money and the students paid the loan back when they started work.

Before that, they had little or no chance of improving themselves.

I know of this because the g/f used to run a medical training school and over the years many thousands of people attended, trained and passed through the school. Most of those will remember it was due to Thaksin that they now work in hospitals.

I am sure there are more instances of examples like this that we never hear about.

And so what? What's this got to do with the current trial over whether he abused his position of authority to make money? Are you trying to say that because someone may have done something good he should be exonerated of any crimes he also did? Hardly a glowing model of democracy, which holds that no person is above the law.

And the rest line their pockets and do nothing for the 'people' of Thailand. So who is worse? Give me someone who does something for the people as opposed to the rest.

[tooninthai]

"I know of this because the g/f..."

Who is "the" g/f? Do you mean YOUR g/f? The house, the car, the cat, the g/f...just another possession.

???

Sober up

[hammered]

Not long to wait now anyway. All the speculation and blatant propaganda from every side are getting a tad tedious so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[rixalex]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Is it right for the state to return any sum of money to a convicted criminal who remains on the run?

Surely, if any money is to be returned, a condition of that should be him coming back to face justice.

It's pretty easy to convict anyone of anything if they're not there to defend themselves.

Only, he was here to defend himself. It was after the trial that he did the runner.

And just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they lose all legal rights.

It's not just that he was convicted, it is that he refuses to face punishment. Had he abided by the court's decision as he claimed he would do during the trial; had he accepted their ruling... well then he would be in some sort of a position to demand his full legal rights. As it is, he did neither of those things. He has no respect for Thai justice unless they happen to rule in his favour (as they did for the assets concealment case - did we hear him moan then?).

People like Thaksin can cry all they like about it not being fair - most of us law-abiding citizens couldn't give a monkeys to be frank.

[rixalex]

And so what? What's this got to do with the current trial over whether he abused his position of authority to make money? Are you trying to say that because someone may have done something good he should be exonerated of any crimes he also did? Hardly a glowing model of democracy, which holds that no person is above the law.

And the rest line their pockets and do nothing for the 'people' of Thailand. So who is worse?

Fine, if you think others are worse then make that case for those to be brought to justice. Don't use those you consider to be worse as a reason for someone else to evade justice. Crime is crime. We don't exhonerate on the basis of other people's crimes being worse, do we?

[jdinasia]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

So you are saying --- Give Thaksin back all that he had PLUS some and only take what was "illegal"?

Wow ... so you would let a thief come into your house and steal from you, then go through legal proceedings and only take away from him what he stole? No penalty at all? Amazing!

[cyberskin]

One thing the Thaksin government did that many may not know about was give 'loans' to people to be able to educate themselves and in one case it does impact on many of us who ever need to visit a hospital.

For example he gave loans to poorer students to attend medical school to learn how to become nursing assistants and for those same people to be able, in the future, to go on to become nurses. A 6 month course at med training school was 40,000 Baht. The Thaksin government loaned the students the money and the students paid the loan back when they started work.

Before that, they had little or no chance of improving themselves.

I know of this because the g/f used to run a medical training school and over the years many thousands of people attended, trained and passed through the school. Most of those will remember it was due to Thaksin that they now work in hospitals.

I am sure there are more instances of examples like this that we never hear about.

And so what? What's this got to do with the current trial over whether he abused his position of authority to make money? Are you trying to say that because someone may have done something good he should be exonerated of any crimes he also did? Hardly a glowing model of democracy, which holds that no person is above the law.

He was illegally removed from office by a militairy coup led by top militairy brass and the bangkok elite, then illegally convicted of a crime You can't convict the leader of a democratic country while they are in power since they have the ability to pardon crimes. Exactly where do you find democracy in any of this mess?

[animatic]

Thaksin has every opportunity to got to court and clear his name in person.

He has the means, and the money/lawyers to do so, he has access to transport .

He would already been out from the Racha case some time ago

if he had served his slap on the hand sentence.

But that wasn't the worry,

his BIG worry is he KNOWS there is something in the other cases,

and they are NOT small, the government just successfully prosecuted the

fastest example to hold him in place. But he absconded.

He has lawyers and could just say " i Acknowledge this case." several times,

and the cases could proceed, but he is using his self created absence as a procedural block

to prevent further progress, ie using rule of law when he sees fit,

and not when it doesn't benefit him.

I don't want to play the world smallest violin for him...

I can play a REAL one... badly... Uncle Miltie style.

I would gladly do it outside his cell door for a few nights

as pay back for all the hassles he's caused.

Edited February 21, 2010 by animatic

[rixalex]

He was illegally removed from office by a militairy coup led by top militairy brass and the bangkok elite, then illegally convicted of a crime

Illegally convicted of a crime?

First you said he wasn't here to defend himself when he was. Now you've saying he was convicted illegally. Can you provide some evidence to back up this untruthful nonsense?

[SeanMoran]

He was illegally removed from office by a militairy coup led by top militairy brass and the bangkok elite, then illegally convicted of a crime

Illegally convicted of a crime?

First you said he wasn't here to defend himself when he was. Now you've saying he was convicted illegally. Can you provide some evidence to back up this untruthful nonsense?

What would it matter anyway? Only two years. I would have still respected Thaksin if he'd been a man and done his time like the rest of us, whether we agree with the verdict or not, he put his own little self before the worth of this nation, and so what was once a PM who IMHO was one of the best for working-class Thai people is now nothing more than figurehead of no worth at all. When push came to shove, he ran away. That's a fact.

[animatic]

I shot your sister and she's dead,

because she was going to tell mom I stole her purse and her car.

But I built a hospital and saved your mothers life before that.

So should I be let off from the murder charge because I built the hospital and saved a life?

********************************************************************************

***

I built some roads and helped a few villagers with their loans and used other peoples money to do it,

I also stole moneys from the same accounts of others I used to build the roads and pay off the loans.

So should I be let off for stealing from those accounts, when I used more of that money to build roads?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Others steal from other accounts, so I should not go to jail for stealing from accounts.

Oh wait others HAVE gone to jail for stealing from accounts...

But I am special, I 'care about you', since I built roads,

see I am telling you that, so it must be true. So don't make me go to jail,

and I get to keep the money I took from the accounts,

because I used other peoples money to pay off poor peoples loans.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:::

Thakins reddened arguments are so much air and amateur philosophy.

Sophomoric Comments 101 is in room 223,

turn left at the statue of the square round poet

and keep walking.

Edited February 21, 2010 by animatic

[jdinasia]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Is it right for the state to return any sum of money to a convicted criminal who remains on the run?

Surely, if any money is to be returned, a condition of that should be him coming back to face justice.

It's pretty easy to convict anyone of anything if they're not there to defend themselves. Just point your finger at a chair and say "How do you answer to the charges of corruption, money laundering, etc?" When the chair doesn't answer back you say "See, Guilty as charged!". And just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they lose all legal rights.

Hmmmmmm you seem to miss the point that he was convicted of a different crime already .. and fled. He did however answer the charges against him in this trial and his lawyers defended him. He'll even have the right to appeal ---- IF he shows up in person within 30 days of the verdict.

In Thailand, for many cases, you must appear once before the case can go forward. If you run away after you appear the government (like in most places) has the right to try you in absentia (or is that en absentia?). You may not, however run away after answering the charges and stay away until the clock runs down on the statute of limitations if you have answered the charges.

[jdinasia]

One thing the Thaksin government did that many may not know about was give 'loans' to people to be able to educate themselves and in one case it does impact on many of us who ever need to visit a hospital.

For example he gave loans to poorer students to attend medical school to learn how to become nursing assistants and for those same people to be able, in the future, to go on to become nurses. A 6 month course at med training school was 40,000 Baht. The Thaksin government loaned the students the money and the students paid the loan back when they started work.

Before that, they had little or no chance of improving themselves.

I know of this because the g/f used to run a medical training school and over the years many thousands of people attended, trained and passed through the school. Most of those will remember it was due to Thaksin that they now work in hospitals.

I am sure there are more instances of examples like this that we never hear about.

And so what? What's this got to do with the current trial over whether he abused his position of authority to make money? Are you trying to say that because someone may have done something good he should be exonerated of any crimes he also did? Hardly a glowing model of democracy, which holds that no person is above the law.

and so what? It means that toon's G/F personally benefitted from those loans that were given to others. What we don't know is ... were there jobs for the people that graduated? and are Nurses Aide jobs better than working for 7-11?

[jdinasia]

He was illegally removed from office by a militairy coup led by top militairy brass and the bangkok elite, then illegally convicted of a crime You can't convict the leader of a democratic country while they are in power since they have the ability to pardon crimes. Exactly where do you find democracy in any of this mess?

I think you may wish to check the facts about convicting the leader of a democratic country whilst they are in office and also about who gives pardons in Thailand

[h90]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Is it right for the state to return any sum of money to a convicted criminal who remains on the run?

Surely, if any money is to be returned, a condition of that should be him coming back to face justice.

It's pretty easy to convict anyone of anything if they're not there to defend themselves. Just point your finger at a chair and say "How do you answer to the charges of corruption, money laundering, etc?" When the chair doesn't answer back you say "See, Guilty as charged!". And just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't mean they lose all legal rights.

They wanted that he defend himself, as well there are many other cases which are halted as he does not come to defend himself.

[Crushdepth]

Exactly where do you find democracy in any of this mess?

The present government is an elected government. You do realise there was an election after the coup, right?

[h90]

One thing the Thaksin government did that many may not know about was give 'loans' to people to be able to educate themselves and in one case it does impact on many of us who ever need to visit a hospital.

For example he gave loans to poorer students to attend medical school to learn how to become nursing assistants and for those same people to be able, in the future, to go on to become nurses. A 6 month course at med training school was 40,000 Baht. The Thaksin government loaned the students the money and the students paid the loan back when they started work.

Before that, they had little or no chance of improving themselves.

I know of this because the g/f used to run a medical training school and over the years many thousands of people attended, trained and passed through the school. Most of those will remember it was due to Thaksin that they now work in hospitals.

I am sure there are more instances of examples like this that we never hear about.

And so what? What's this got to do with the current trial over whether he abused his position of authority to make money? Are you trying to say that because someone may have done something good he should be exonerated of any crimes he also did? Hardly a glowing model of democracy, which holds that no person is above the law.

He was illegally removed from office by a militairy coup led by top militairy brass and the bangkok elite, then illegally convicted of a crime You can't convict the leader of a democratic country while they are in power since they have the ability to pardon crimes. Exactly where do you find democracy in any of this mess?

hello back....the next name?

he was not the leader, because his last election was complete illegal, therefore ALL the other parties boycotted it. He could still not win it, as he didn't get the necessary votes in some areas. He opened the parliament will less than the necessary MPs.

How do you mean "illegal" convicted??

[ballpoint]

You can't convict the leader of a democratic country while they are in power since they have the ability to pardon crimes.

In a truly democratic country that is precisely what you can, and if they are guilty, should and must do. In fact, it is one of the pillars of democracy. Not that Thailand has ever been a true democracy. If it were, Thaksin would have fallen at the first check during his asset concealment case. But again, this has nothing to do with the current trial. Nor has what anyone else may have, or not have, done, been convicted on or gotten away with. Evidence was presented which, unless you are going to tell me was fabricated, was pretty damning to him, including on the creation of an unlevel playing field in the favour of AIS, and on the government loan to Burma so it could buy equipment from his company. Ethical behaviour from a PM? Legal behaviour from a PM? No to both. And let's not forget, he could have been present to defend himself in the courtroom. No one is forcing him to stay away. But he ran, like a rat into a hole, away from his responsibilities. I'd like someone to tell me why, if the court finds him guilty in the current case and recommends further criminal proceedings should any of the evidence presented warrent it, he should continue to be held up by some as a great man? Why should he be exonerated and have any ill gotten gains handed back to him, bearing in mind they came from the taxpayers of the country, a group he did his best to avoid joining? Why should he not be properly charged and punished for any crimes he may have commited? Bearing in mind that "it's not fair", "he did a few good things", "other people have gotten away with it in the past" and "but, the PAD occupied the airport" aren't really classic defense statements. How will his absolution help move Thai democracy forwards?

[Gary A]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

Ahhh Gary, thanks for the laugh big fella, 'verdict' and 'fair' in one sentence..... , oh of course it would depend greatly on whos 'fairness' meter you were using to measure this, wouldnt it?

Still, imagine sorting your way through the tonnes of BS paperwork and trying to work out where the "TRUTH" lies!

I think Gary is saying that Thaksin should only give back the money that he stole, while in office. Thats fair right? After all, when the thief steals your wallet, if he gives it back, all is forgiven right? But T doesn't want to to give it back. He is a true believer. He believes it was his right to manipulate the telecom laws in Thailand to allow is own company to grow and produce record profits. It is that fact, more than any other, that boggles the mind. He actually thinks he hasn't done anything wrong. He's the victim!!!!! Cry me a river.

If a thief steals my wallet and he is caught, I would expect the court to give me my wallet back. I wouldn't expect the court to give me his house and car.

[Gary A]

Thaksin has every opportunity to got to court and clear his name in person.

He has the means, and the money/lawyers to do so, he has access to transport .

Are you a yellow shirt Thai on the PAD payroll? If not, you could have fooled me.

[tooninthai]

One thing the Thaksin government did that many may not know about was give 'loans' to people to be able to educate themselves and in one case it does impact on many of us who ever need to visit a hospital.

For example he gave loans to poorer students to attend medical school to learn how to become nursing assistants and for those same people to be able, in the future, to go on to become nurses. A 6 month course at med training school was 40,000 Baht. The Thaksin government loaned the students the money and the students paid the loan back when they started work.

Before that, they had little or no chance of improving themselves.

I know of this because the g/f used to run a medical training school and over the years many thousands of people attended, trained and passed through the school. Most of those will remember it was due to Thaksin that they now work in hospitals.

I am sure there are more instances of examples like this that we never hear about.

And so what? What's this got to do with the current trial over whether he abused his position of authority to make money? Are you trying to say that because someone may have done something good he should be exonerated of any crimes he also did? Hardly a glowing model of democracy, which holds that no person is above the law.

and so what? It means that toon's G/F personally benefitted from those loans that were given to others. What we don't know is ... were there jobs for the people that graduated? and are Nurses Aide jobs better than working for 7-11?

Actually, there were plenty of jobs for all the students who qualified. Many have moved on from being Nurse Aids to becoming Nurses, Pharmaceutical reps and into working for Doctors in small private clinics.

Yes, she personally benefited from those loans but so did the Nurses, Doctors, Pharmacists, Teachers, Cleaners and others who worked at the school. What is the problem with that? Seems to me like the money was well spent and spread around many people. In turn that means the money will also have benefited their families and others in the general economy.

Many of those still stop her in the street to speak to her and 2 of whom have invited her to their weddings this month.

Ahhh, but I do not suppose some of you like the idea of wealth being spread amongst the people. Keep the *&^%$£ workers down under the thumb where they belong, Hey? Can't have these natives having houses and cars and money and better job prospects now, can we???

[rogerber]

If the verdict is a fair one, I doubt there will be any problems. No way could the government keep it all. Thaksin had to submit financial statements before being named prime minister. That much should be returned plus a reasonable return on the original amount.

If the entire total only is seized, he's getting off easy because if they subtract the "damages to the State from his manipulated and directed policies and legislature" it exceeds the 76 billion seized to the tune of an additional 24 billion.

If they do base it on his sworn official financial statements from when he was named PM, they would return 500 million that he claimed were his total assets at the time, and return the remaining 75,500 million (75.5 billion) to the Treasury.

[rogerber]

In one demonstration yesterday there were approx 3,000 red shirts

On a day they had stated would include a 1,000,000-man march.

If you really think the red shirts are dwindling, you really need to look again imho.

A ratio of 3,000/1,000,000 would seem to indicate at least a slight decrease in the stated amount of support.

[Cayenne]

While Thaksin did have a few positive contributions while he was in office, let's not forget that everything he did was with OUR money. That's right- OUR money = the hardworking middle class taxpayers' money ('cos the rich here evade taxes anyway ). It's like he's telling us that for every 100 baht he takes from us, he'll spend 30 baht of it on healthcare, loans, etc. (AND take full credit for that) and the rest he keeps for himself and his cronies.

If he really cared for the poor, he would've spent some from his own pocket. As (soon to be ex) Thailand's richest man, how much has he donated to charities?