Testifying Against Thaksin : Star Witnesses

[webfact]

Star witnesses

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Some pointed to the obvious, while others revealed some previously unknown secrets.

But the star witnesses in Thaksin Shinawatra's assets-seizure case played equally important roles leading to the cascade of 'guilty' verdicts that rained down on him on Friday regarding major incidences of abuse of power.

They are an integral part of the historic ruling, thanks either to their names and status that lent credence to the court's judgement or to damning

testimonies that the defence found difficult to rebut. Without the following people, the case may not have ended as it did:

SURAKIART SATHIRATHAI, FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER

HERO OR BACKSTABBER, Surakiart's testimony on the Export-Import Bank loan to the Burmese junta showed not only had Thaksin been warned that the loan could subject him to criticism for a conflict of interest, but also that Thaksin defied such warnings by virtually demanding a sizeable increase in the credit line.

Through Surakiart's statements, the Supreme Court learned that Thaksin had been warned about the loan, not once, but a few times. Surakiart also conveyed a similar message to the Burmese Foreign Ministry during a bilateral meeting in Phuket in February 2004. At that meeting, he told the Burmese to keep the loan request at Bt3 billion, but later it was Thaksin who gave a verbal order for a Bt1 billion increase. A sizeable portion of the Bt4 billion headed directly toward Thaicom, although the original purpose of the loan did not seem to involve telecom development.

Apichart Shinnowan, director-general of the ministry's East Asia Department, backed up Surakiart's testimony by adding key pieces to the Exim Bank loan jigsaw puzzle, leading the Supreme Court to declare the loan one of the two "clearest" cases of Thaksin's misuse of power to help his own businesses.

Two Thaicom employees, Natta-pong Temsiripong and Padej Wongpa-yaban, gave the court more information on Thaicom's attempts to make inroads into Burma. They told the court Thaicom had been involved in telecom development schemes in Bur-ma since 1998. The court also learned that Thaicom established cordial relations with the Burmese top authorities when Thaksin was in power.

SITTHICHAI POOKAIYAUDOM, FORMER INFORMATION |AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY MINISTER

SITTHICHAI told the court that the excise tax policy for telecom services implemented by the Thaksin administration in 2003 prevented fair competition and benefited his family's telecom empire. He testified before the Supreme Court on January 12. He said state-owned TOT and CAT Telecom suffered financially from the policy, which had allowed private telecom operators to deduct the excise tax from concession fees they paid to TOT or CAT.

Sitthichai, who reversed the policy after taking over ICT oversight for the Surayud Chulanont regime, said the excise tax measure effectively discouraged companies, especially foreign giants, from entering the telecom market.

SOMKIAT TANGKITVANIT, VICE PRESIDENT OF THAILAND DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

SOMKIAT told the court that collecting excise tax from telecom services was inconsistent with the master plan for development of the telecom industry.

Telecom services have brought great benefit to society, but instead of imposing the excise tax on telecom services, the government should have focused on promoting wider accessibility of telecom services to benefit society more, he said. The telecom-excise policy helped existing private telecom firms boost their profits, because new competition was curbed, he added.

If the government imposed the telecom excise in order to seek more revenue for state coffers, it should not have issued the Cabinet resolution to allow private telecom-concession holders to deduct excise taxes from concession fees they paid to state telecom enterprises.

Somkiat testified before the Supreme Court on January 12.

BORWORNSAK UWANNO, DIRECTOR OF THE KING PRAJADHIPOK INSTITUTE

ALTHOUGH Borwornsak did not testify directly to the Supreme Court, his testimony to the Assets Examination Committee was crucial. It showed that Thaksin held a conflict of interest in the satellite deal.

Borwornsak served as Cabinet secretary-general under Thaksin, succeeding Wissanu Kreu-ngarm. Borwornsak told the AEC that he withdrew the satellite proposal from the Cabinet agenda.

In this deal, Shin Corp requested that Thaicom reduce its stake in Shin Corp. The transport minister at that time approved this deal even before the Cabinet could give its nod.

"I thought that this matter was not right because in this concession, the accused was the prime minister, who had a concession with the state. I therefore withdrew the proposal from the Cabinet," Borwornsak said.

The Supreme Court used his statement as part of its deliberation to rule that Thaksin had attempted to abuse his power.

WALACHAYA SRIMACHAN, ASST SECRETARY-GENERAL |OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

ANOTHER STAR witness was Walachaya. Her testimony on November 19, 2009 before the Supreme Court broke the back of both Thaksin and his ex-wife Pojaman Damapong.

She gave a detailed account of the ownership structure of Win Mark, an offshore company that Thaksin and Pojaman used to hide their assets. This followed a tedious joint investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Special Investigation, which had to work closely with financial regulators from other countries.

As a result of the investigation following Walachaya's testimony, it was found that the shares of six companies related to SC Assets were sold to Win Mark for a combined Bt1.5 billion.

The money was transferred from several accounts at three banks in Singapore. Bt300 million of this Bt1.5 billion came from a bank account of Thaksin and Pojaman, while Bt1.2 billion came from Win Mark's bank account in Singapore.

Win Mark and Ample Rich Investments are both offshore companies of Thaksin.

Walachaya's testimony provided important evidence for the Supreme Court to conclude that Thaksin and Pojaman concealed their assets.

NAM YIMYAEM, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE

NAM APPEARED on the witness stand on December 3, 2009 to testify against Thaksin. His agency was responsible for coming up with the charge of Thaksin being unusually rich. Thaksin's lawyers tried to question the legitimacy of the AEC. But the Supreme Court asserted the legitimacy of the AEC, whose work was passed on to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Nam testified that the AEC's investigation found that Thaksin had become unusually rich as a result of his abuse of power while serving as prime minister. Without the AEC, the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case would not have come into being.

SUNAI MANOMAI-UDOM,

FORMER CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION (DSI)

IN KEY TESTIMONY to the Supreme Court, Sunai said Thaksin and his ex-wife set up layers of "paper" companies to hide the true ownership of their assets. Sunai was one of the prosecution witnesses.

After SC Assets was founded in 1994, Thaksin and his wife Pojaman set up several "shell" companies such as Win Mark, Blue Diamond and Sinatra to conceal their holdings in SC Assets, the real estate development arm of the family.

Sunai said there were certified documents from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia to support the conclusion these firms were nominees of Thaksin and Pojaman while he held public office from 2001-2006.

KAEWSAN ATIBHODI, MEMBER OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE

AS A KEY prosecution witness, Kaewsan in November 2009 said the whole Bt76-billion fortune should be taken by the state.

"First of all, Thaksin hid his vast shareholdings even after being elected as prime minister, so he intentionally violated Article 100(3) of the NCCC law. Secondly, as prime minister, he introduced measures and policies that benefited Shin Corp so he violated Article 100(1) of the NCCC law.

"Therefore, Thaksin abused his office to gain his wealth, resulting in a loss to the state of more than Bt100 billion. Since he and his former wife controlled as much as 46.87 per cent of Shin Corp, the benefits from such a large shareholding were therefore ill-gotten and should be forfeited," he said.

The prosecution would have to convince the court that Thaksin and Pojaman did really conceal their wealth while the former was in office - a key point consistently countered and dismissed by the defence lawyers.

Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.

"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich (one of the offshore nominees), could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.

"However, we were not given any hard evidence that couldn't be meddled with, such as share depositories or transaction records that Thaksin could have sought from UBS Bank (Singapore branch) to prove that his son, Panthongtae, was the authorised owner of those shares, not just his father's nominee."

Kaewsan's role was pivotal in the seizure of Thaksin's wealth.

-- The Nation 2010-03-01

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Changian]

Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.

So you have to be able to conclusively and beyond all doubt, reasonable and otherwise,prove yourself to be not guilty in a corruption case.

"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich (one of the offshore nominees), could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.

'Could have been' but the prosecution doesn't have to provide any proof that they were - just that there is a possibility of this being done.

[givenall]

It is and was obvious, that Mt. T. really did not care about using and abusing his power while being in the office. I really think he thought that he was an absolute power and the law of the land while he was in the office. It must be his police training that gave him this impression

[LomSak27]

givenall posted

It is and was obvious, that Mt. T. really did not care about using and abusing his power while being in the office. I really think he thought that he was an absolute power and the law of the land while he was in the office. It must be his police training that gave him this impression

ahh so you have little experience of how previous PM's behave eh He's just one on a long line.

[antony77]

Even with these explanations of Taksins crimes, red shirt leaders will not understand them. The red shirt leader in Taksins stronghold Sankampaeng for example, is a "sliced fried banana" seller. It is these sort of people Taksin used and exploited. (People who have never heard of income tax etc.) The government should go out of its way to explain to the redshirts what Taksin did in terms they can understand.

[anotherpeter]

Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.

So you have to be able to conclusively and beyond all doubt, reasonable and otherwise,prove yourself to be not guilty in a corruption case.

"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich (one of the offshore nominees), could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.

'Could have been' but the prosecution doesn't have to provide any proof that they were - just that there is a possibility of this being done.

Thaksin needed to provide proof that he didn't own the shares while he was prime minister.

He was unable to provide *any* "third party" evidence that showed that share transfer transactions took place. All that he apparently could produce was some promissary notes showing that the children and others would pay some amount at a later date. These could have easily been typed up the day before they were required. One of the notes supplied by Thaksin even had a name for his wife that she didn't start using until after he became prime minister. This was "an error" in reproducing a lost note. It just shows how easy it is to produce these notes, and doesn't really prove that any share transfers were actually done.

[Samuian]

Given that the burden of proof rests with the accused in corruption and related cases, the prosecution concluded that they were not satisfied with evidence presented by the defence, which argued that all Shin Corp shares were "sold" to the couple's children and relatives before Thaksin assumed the premiership.

So you have to be able to conclusively and beyond all doubt, reasonable and otherwise,prove yourself to be not guilty in a corruption case.

"This argument was not convincing because the documentation, such as notices of share transfers, promissory notes, annual reports of Ample Rich (one of the offshore nominees), could have been tampered with or backdated to alter the whole story," Kaewsan said.

'Could have been' but the prosecution doesn't have to provide any proof that they were - just that there is a possibility of this being done.

Just remember one major thing which got him out of his mess a bit

earlier, same story, or the beginning of the end:

"Honest mistakes" when his fuddling with his assets was discovered and questioned - then he got off with a very narrow margin, back then Justice was something "one could rely on" and he was "proud of Thailand's Justice" system, now it's not as easy as it was to manipulate the system and put people under pressure, and it's not good anymore... it's biased!

It's quite easy to look through isn't it?

"I didn't shoot!", said the man with the smoking gun in his hand!

Unless it is proven that he really didn't, he is guilty, isn't he?

.....

O.J. Simpson.... does that ring a bell?

Yes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/noYes/no/yes/no....

Edited March 1, 2010 by Samuian

[way2muchcoffee]

givenall posted

It is and was obvious, that Mt. T. really did not care about using and abusing his power while being in the office. I really think he thought that he was an absolute power and the law of the land while he was in the office. It must be his police training that gave him this impression

ahh so you have little experience of how previous PM's behave eh He's just one on a long line.

And he's certainly not the first to go down for corruption.

[LomSak27]

Rather hard to do Antony. These are the people who have been the work force of Thailand, and the goverment has never done a thing for them until Thaksin came along. Yes he was corrupt as has been every goverment since 32, which any of these banana seller lowlies will tell you. Why are they so concerned about corruption now they ask ... they never have been before?! (hmmmm Did the Statute of Limatations pass on the Blue Diamond affair, thats when a quarter of a million lowlies got kicked out of SA because of Pu Yais insatiable avariciousness)

That is the real problem not one of the red shirt actually believes that Abh, the Dems and PAD would do a thing for them, or continue any of Thaks populist policies unless they fear them, IE they have to. When you have divisions this deep in society, nothing is going to bridge it overnight. And of course it would be beneath a DEM Pu Yai to actually explain this to a lowly banana seller so thats moot point, eh.

[ding]

Excellent point here;

"However, we were not given any hard evidence that couldn't be meddled with, such as share depositories or transaction records that Thaksin could have sought from UBS Bank (Singapore branch) to prove that his son, Panthongtae, was the authorised owner of those shares, not just his father's nominee."

So, did defense or prosecution check with UBS Bank for these?

Anyway, man I wish American justice worked like the Thai court on this level.

[way2muchcoffee]

Rather hard to do Antony. These are the people who have been the work force of Thailand, and the goverment has never done a thing for them until Thaksin came along. Yes he was corrupt as has been every goverment since 32, which any of these banana seller lowlies will tell you. Why are they so concerned about corruption now they ask ... they never have been before?! (hmmmm Did the Statute of Limatations pass on the Blue Diamond affair, thats when a quarter of a million lowlies got kicked out of SA because of Pu Yais insatiable avariciousness)

That is the real problem not one of the red shirt actually believes that Abh, the Dems and PAD would do a thing for them, or continue any of Thaks populist policies unless they fear them, IE they have to. When you have divisions this deep in society, nothing is going to bridge it overnight. And of course it would be beneath a DEM Pu Yai to actually explain this to a lowly banana seller so thats moot point, eh.

It is unfortunate that their beliefs are wrong and misguided then. In the last year the Democrats, under the leadership of Abhisit, have promulgated many measures designed to improve the lot of the poor. And they have done it in a fiscally sound and sustainable fashion. That box is opened. All future governments will need to pay attention to the needs of rural Thailand. I believe that Abhisit does care about the plight of people in rural areas.

Democrat politicians would love to be able to explain their positions to the people in rural areas of Thailand. Unfortunately the Thaksin machine has so demonized them with propaganda and outright lies that any Democrat going to many parts of the north/north east faces violence.

Edited March 1, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[LomSak27]

The Thaksin propaganda machine had less to do with it than you think. The Democratic party has traditionally viewed the the poor as only a cheap source of labor. As always its not what you say but what you do - and that is something that will take the Democratic party years to prove they think otherwise.

[LomSak27]

Anyway, man I wish American justice worked like the Thai court on this level.

I believe the US gave Thailand a open and shut case regarding sirport scanners ... what happend to 'case' that by the way ?

[way2muchcoffee]

The Thaksin propaganda machine had less to do with it than you think. The Democratic party has traditionally viewed the the poor as only a cheap source of labor. As always its not what you say but what you do - and that is something that will take the Democratic party years to prove they think otherwise.

Agreed.

It should be noted that with the Thaksin media machine inundating rural Thais with lies and half truths daily (for years) any progress the Democrats may make will be exceedingly slow. It won't matter if the Democrats offer levels of assistance and support many orders of magnitude greater than Thaksin ever did. Such is the power of propaganda.

[LomSak27]

Well you also have the unfortunate ... sticking one's foot in mouth. Or a red would just say, true motives. The Nation Newspaper came out with an OPED piece when The dems formed the new goverment and it stated - 'This is not about corruption, this is about Thaksin' and went on in that vane.

My GOD!! If I'm a red and I read that I would assume they are not concerned about corruption, not concerned about keeping populist policies and all you say is nothing - empty rhetoric. As their mouthpeice; The Nation stated. I remember reading this and shaking my head in disbelief - want the Reds to remain a viable power block - You just gave them a reason to do it as you have boldly admitted what you say is NOT what you believe, or will pursue once in office.

Not much sympathy for the Dems - what you sow you will reap

[ding]

I hope these star witnesses are being protected. As in, inside a compound or within a security perimeter. Anyone know?

[geriatrickid]

Anyway, man I wish American justice worked like the Thai court on this level.

It does. There are a qite few falsely convicted people of various US state death rows.

You might want to read up on the Innocence Project where law students review the cases of people with dubious convictions.

In respect to similar charges, I do not think you would wish to be in a position of having to prove your innocence as opposed to having the prosecution prove your guilt.

Please note my comments are not directed at this particular verdict, but rather the manner in which the Thai judicial system is more closely aligned with the French legacy of the Napoleonic code of justice and not Common law as is the case in most English speaking nations, including India.)

[Screws]

givenall posted

It is and was obvious, that Mt. T. really did not care about using and abusing his power while being in the office. I really think he thought that he was an absolute power and the law of the land while he was in the office. It must be his police training that gave him this impression

ahh so you have little experience of how previous PM's behave eh He's just one on a long line.

Is it possible that Thailand is changing?

[ballpoint]

The Thaksin propaganda machine had less to do with it than you think. The Democratic party has traditionally viewed the the poor as only a cheap source of labor. As always its not what you say but what you do - and that is something that will take the Democratic party years to prove they think otherwise.

Agreed.

It should be noted that with the Thaksin media machine inundating rural Thais with lies and half truths daily (for years) any progress the Democrats may make will be exceedingly slow. It won't matter if the Democrats offer levels of assistance and support many orders of magnitude greater than Thaksin ever did. Such is the power of propaganda.

I wouldn't agree so wholeheartedly. It is far too simplistic to say the Democrats did nothing to help the poor and Thaksin was the first to do so. Are you going to tell us that everyone in the south is rich? It's a traditional Democrat stronghold. There are an awful lot of poor people down there. Similarly, the Northeast has traditionally been the stronghold of whatever party the favoured politicians, their families and their proxies happen to be in at the time of the election. How did the NE ruling "elite", to sling that word back at the Thaksinites, manage to keep getting voted for, despite keeping the people poor? By keeping the people poorly educated. What did Thaksin really do to change this? Did he smash the previous elite cabals? Did he start spending more public money on the NE poor? Did he disband the shameful system that sets rice prices paid to the farmer? No. He bought the loyalty of the Newins et al. He bought the votes of the people (and there's more ways of doing that than by simply handing money out to voters. As I stated, Thaksin's main method was to cut out the lowest denominator and buy the politicians themselves). In its entire term of office his government spent on Isaan only 33% of what it did on the rest of the country. This includes education and transport, two of the major methods of increasing the longterm wealth of the populace. Sure, he incresased the short term wealth of some by slinging other peoples money at them, money that he wanted paid back in one way or another, but he had no desire to actually educate them. Why should he? He had them in his pocket just the way they were. Sure, no previous PM had ever done anything different, but to sling the blame on the Democrats, when Isaan has been "ruled" by the same dynasties for decades, dynasties that have pretty much always been on the opposing side to the Democrats, is a little harsh. Ironically, the good thing that Thaksin has done is to make people more aware of the injustices of the past, and cause the current link, however tenuous and unstable, between the Democrats and the smaller Isaan parties. We have no idea if Abhisit would or wouldn't have carried out as many rural helping policies had it not been for the current situation, but he is doing them and that's the main thing. For example, for the first time in almost 20 years of living in Buri Ram, I'm seeing a second rice crop being grown in my area. The government has guaranteed a price for it. Not a loan, not a handout for doing nothing, but a fair payment for work. Of course, this being Newin territory, he's trying to claim credit, but not one farmer I speak with is even talking about Thaksin in relation to it, (apart from those saying it will help to pay off the loans they got from his government), let alone giving him credit.

But, this is all off topic. The facts are that Thaksin stole around 150billion baht from the Thai people. Those named in the OP have shown us the proof of that. He may have been the best PM the country has had, he may have been the worst. He may even have been just average. That doesn't matter one little bit. The man has been proven to be a liar, a cheat, and a thief. Let's hope Abhisit follows up on the crimes against humanity charges as well so we can finish the list against his name.

[ding]

Anyway, man I wish American justice worked like the Thai court on this level.

It does. There are a qite few falsely convicted people of various US state death rows.

You might want to read up on the Innocence Project where law students review the cases of people with dubious convictions.

In respect to similar charges, I do not think you would wish to be in a position of having to prove your innocence as opposed to having the prosecution prove your guilt.

Please note my comments are not directed at this particular verdict, but rather the manner in which the Thai judicial system is more closely aligned with the French legacy of the Napoleonic code of justice and not Common law as is the case in most English speaking nations, including India.)

Right on somebody knows about the innocence project! Professor Scheck working off some OJ guilt is a useful amends to make. DNA was denied to many and many were railroaded to their death, "the end".

What I'm admiring about the Thai court is that they will go after a rich and powerful guy. I don't see that happening in the states. Unless ya think impeaching Clitnot for a knee loosener is going after the powerful!

[junglist]

givenall posted

It is and was obvious, that Mt. T. really did not care about using and abusing his power while being in the office. I really think he thought that he was an absolute power and the law of the land while he was in the office. It must be his police training that gave him this impression

ahh so you have little experience of how previous PM's behave eh He's just one on a long line.

sad but true...

[rogerdee123]

There's been a lot of corruption amongst Thai politicians for decades .... however the scale of Taksin's eclipses all the others (probably several if not most of them put together). I think that's what did him in. Greed and arrogance. It's amazing to me that he's still so arrogant.

[Netfan]

Rather hard to do Antony. These are the people who have been the work force of Thailand, and the goverment has never done a thing for them until Thaksin came along. Yes he was corrupt as has been every goverment since 32, which any of these banana seller lowlies will tell you. Why are they so concerned about corruption now they ask ... they never have been before?! (hmmmm Did the Statute of Limatations pass on the Blue Diamond affair, thats when a quarter of a million lowlies got kicked out of SA because of Pu Yais insatiable avariciousness)

That is the real problem not one of the red shirt actually believes that Abh, the Dems and PAD would do a thing for them, or continue any of Thaks populist policies unless they fear them, IE they have to. When you have divisions this deep in society, nothing is going to bridge it overnight. And of course it would be beneath a DEM Pu Yai to actually explain this to a lowly banana seller so thats moot point, eh.

ok, i am going to ask what i asked in another thread - please explain exactly what Thaksin did for the poor. 30 baht health care. Did he re-do the health care system while he was at it? No. Education- he appointed himself Minister if Ed at one point. Any positive changes? Please list some. He made it easier for farmers to get loans. Which they did not understand and could not pay back. So they lose their homes, land, trucks. Did he appoint uncorrupted village headmen? Surround himself with new uncorrupt politicians? Go ahead- provide the names - you could start with Newin, who ended up stabbing him in the back, then go on to Chalerm and Chavalit, and on and on. Fact is he had a chance to do some good and didn't do anything except line his own pockets.

[ding]

I'm no Taksin fan at all. But on the ground level, this is what I'm told by one Isaan person;

Government loans for projects, like dredge a swamp and have more water later in the year for irrigation. Some schools applied for and received computers. Road improvement requests were responded to. Amphur and/or village would get say 10K Baht per household distributed to individual households for improvements - to be paid back. Infastructure and waste water projects would actually get work done, instead of just money released and no work completed. Money used to go from person to person, agency to agency, until funds were depleted and projects never got done.

200-500 Baht per household to vote for Taksin. Popular program there. People would vote for who they want, however, but take the money. Isaan people in Bangkok like him too - Taxi drivers like him because it was cheaper to operate under him etc.

Isaan people were easy to fool, I'm told. Less educated and liked his photo ops in traditional casual clothes and eating Isaan food, etc.

Please tell me where I'm wrong, this is just what I'm told - trying to understand it myself too.

[CLOD]

"NAM YIMYAEM, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSETS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE

NAM APPEARED on the witness stand on December 3, 2009 to testify against Thaksin. His agency was responsible for coming up with the charge of Thaksin being unusually rich. Thaksin's lawyers tried to question the legitimacy of the AEC. But the Supreme Court asserted the legitimacy of the AEC, whose work was passed on to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Nam testified that the AEC's investigation found that Thaksin had become unusually rich as a result of his abuse of power while serving as prime minister. Without the AEC, the Bt76-billion assets-seizure case would not have come into being."

Well, have you ever seen anything like it in a proper democracy.

Can you just imagine the dialogue that must have taken place.

"Were gonna get that bas*ard, what can we get him on"

"Has he broke any laws"

"No"

"No matter, we'll have a coup, and then appoint our own judiciary, who can then come up with some new laws and charges for him, and also say we are legit."

"Then we'll have that twice democtratically elected PM bas*ard, who is distributing our wealth around the people, common peasants"

"Oh , and while you're at were bringing Fascism back, servants with equal say to us, indeed, what do they think this is , a democracy....

Now , where do you find that sort of behaviour in a dememocracy...

[steveromagnino]

I wouldn't agree so wholeheartedly. It is far too simplistic to say the Democrats did nothing to help the poor and Thaksin was the first to do so. Are you going to tell us that everyone in the south is rich? It's a traditional Democrat stronghold. There are an awful lot of poor people down there. Similarly, the Northeast has traditionally been the stronghold of whatever party the favoured politicians, their families and their proxies happen to be in at the time of the election. How did the NE ruling "elite", to sling that word back at the Thaksinites, manage to keep getting voted for, despite keeping the people poor? By keeping the people poorly educated. What did Thaksin really do to change this? Did he smash the previous elite cabals? Did he start spending more public money on the NE poor? Did he disband the shameful system that sets rice prices paid to the farmer? No. He bought the loyalty of the Newins et al. He bought the votes of the people (and there's more ways of doing that than by simply handing money out to voters. As I stated, Thaksin's main method was to cut out the lowest denominator and buy the politicians themselves). In its entire term of office his government spent on Isaan only 33% of what it did on the rest of the country. This includes education and transport, two of the major methods of increasing the longterm wealth of the populace. Sure, he incresased the short term wealth of some by slinging other peoples money at them, money that he wanted paid back in one way or another, but he had no desire to actually educate them. Why should he? He had them in his pocket just the way they were. Sure, no previous PM had ever done anything different, but to sling the blame on the Democrats, when Isaan has been "ruled" by the same dynasties for decades, dynasties that have pretty much always been on the opposing side to the Democrats, is a little harsh. Ironically, the good thing that Thaksin has done is to make people more aware of the injustices of the past, and cause the current link, however tenuous and unstable, between the Democrats and the smaller Isaan parties. We have no idea if Abhisit would or wouldn't have carried out as many rural helping policies had it not been for the current situation, but he is doing them and that's the main thing. For example, for the first time in almost 20 years of living in Buri Ram, I'm seeing a second rice crop being grown in my area. The government has guaranteed a price for it. Not a loan, not a handout for doing nothing, but a fair payment for work. Of course, this being Newin territory, he's trying to claim credit, but not one farmer I speak with is even talking about Thaksin in relation to it, (apart from those saying it will help to pay off the loans they got from his government), let alone giving him credit.

But, this is all off topic. The facts are that Thaksin stole around 150billion baht from the Thai people.

Excellent post; I agree entirely.

I would further add that this so called saviour of the poor; there are very few policies that would meet the criteria of:

- introduced by Thaksin (i.e. new)

- sustainable

- successful

If we are to analyse everything he did for the poor, perhaps, arguably, thanks to the tweaking of it since he left, the healthcare is his biggest triumph - admittedly not new (it replaced a previous universal healthcare scheme) nor under his administration particularly sustainable, but wildly successful.

Free computers, loans for things like dredging swamps; cows, rudder trees; the village funds - mostly either very small in scale, results uncertain or more PR than actual effort. Certainly large scale corruption with almost every procurement exercise. And if you want to see the have nots....go to the south of Thailand where they ran on fumes while the N and NE feasted; Thaksin was nothing if not vindictive in punishing areas that didn't vote TRT.

What i will say is that he was at least (2001-mid 2004) proactive in doing SOMETHING - a level of activity and movement seldom seen in officialdom - moving registration for drivers licences etc to the cities; using technology; etc. Too bad most of it was to invest in computers and to create skim, but even so, sometimes to do something in a slow moving bureaucracy, even when it is the wrong thing (as it mostly was - deisel subsidies, the airport fiaso, the yes/no answer cards, reality TV in Roiet, selling Shin tax free, changing telecoms laws, raiding ABAC Poll, suing BKK Post for the airport cracks, trying to buy Liverpool with taxpayer money, trying to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok, reducing tolls towards Isaaan pre election to 20b, using state owned banks to fund friend's businesses, claiming he would eliminate poverty in 8 years, resigning then rescinding, rigging an election, fiddling the ITV concession and firing fair minded journos, demonising the NGOs, declaring the south to be just 'bandits', etc etc) is better than seeming to do very little even if it is the right little.

I am VERY surprised to hear anyone suggest that Thaksin was the first to look after the poor; because this would ignore the FACT that much of rural Thailand has phone lines, roads, schools, hospitals - are we to learn that all of this was introduced since TRT? Obviously, that isn't true and anyone who knows Thai history would look to great initatives of the past that have genuinely improved the livelihoods of the rural areas- Thaksin somehow has bought a trademark on the idea that he is the only one who helps the poor; again - go to southern Thailand and ask them how he has helped. What a nice joke.

As for the blue diamond...I am very surprised to hear this brought up as an example of the haves and havenots, given the large number of TRT faithful directly related to the story, including one of the most senior PT leaders in government now. THis is the classic proof that PT have within their ranks, the very amartaya they wish to speak against. At no point did I see TRT EVER take ANY action to fix this....or the Alpine Golf Course....or any of the other widely known scandals that could have been resolved.

Mighty good at PR though and market research.

As for explaining....I listened to probably 5 hours of explanation of his corruption. Very interesting. Having studied commercial law, I can appreciate some of the trickery, and the way he got caught. I hope the banana sellers spent the same amount of time I did, rather than just taking the words of some Phoo Yai as to what happened. being a voter requires some sense of responsibility also, otherwise, we will go around in circles as we do now. Education is key. To suggest that it is beneath a Phoo Yai on either side of the house is so wrong.

Mind you I've watched the Shinwatras strut around; they think EVERYTHING and EvERYONE is beneath them.

I am suprised much of Buriram is able to get in a second harvest this year; I know the family rellies up there traditionally get 2 crops as we are next to a created lake and thus have water year round. But I understand it is very very dry this year; couple that with the fall out of Mingkwan's overpriced buyup of rice 2 years ago, and we have a bit of an issue on how much to pay these farmers for rice we don't need..... hope the farmers are living within their means now; many of them really got into trouble during the village fund years of 2002-2003.

Edited March 2, 2010 by steveromagnino

[sawadeeken]

Taksin has brought many smiles into my life............... mostly while watching him "squirm"................