Thai Democrat Party Accuses Thaksin Of Making Misleading Comments

[jayboy]

As PM he is held to a higher standard of behaviour than an average investor etc ...

I'm afraid we aren't talking about average investors as my post made clear.I would rather not elaborate further on this.

But you're right Abhisit is not a businessman.But he has strongly promoted Thai investment in Burma, notably in the appalling and outdated infrastructure.I'm not saying he's not right to do so, and from early indications Suu Kyi seems to be modifying her line on inward investment.In terms of moral support to the unpleasant regime however Abhisit stands in the direct line of successive Thai administrations, essentially couldn't care less about the junta's repression.

The trouble is in your eagerness to put Thaksin centre stage of every Thai moral weakness, crime and brutality you end up tying yourself in knots.It just doesn't make sense.

Thaksin's PERSONAL business dealings ---- (at Thai expense) versus Abhisit's need to deal with the de facto government of an ASEAN nation just aren't on the same playing field.

You remind me of those mediaeval theologians arguing how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.We can agree a propos Burma and many other areas that it was wrong for Thaksin to benefit from personal interests through his PM role.He was of course a major businessman who became rich through the telecoms sector in mainly legitimate ways by Thai standards.It would be unrealistic for him to have disposed of his shareholdings when he came to power, though in an ideal world that's what he should have done (and not to maids, chauffeurs etc).There should have been some Chinese Wall or "blind trust" so that his corporate interests whether in Thailand or overseas didn't benefit from political intervention.Difficult to implement I agree but anyway nobody disputes that Thaksin abused the system and deserved to be punished.

My main point however is that you cannot logically maintain it was wrong for Thaksin to invest alongside the Burmese junta but somehow okay for other Thai interests to do so.That is really all I'm saying.

[bangon04]

Is the National News Bureau of Thailand actually incapable of reading the calendar, or have they just hired some subeditors from the Nation?

[jdinasia]

Thaksin's PERSONAL business dealings ---- (at Thai expense) versus Abhisit's need to deal with the de facto government of an ASEAN nation just aren't on the same playing field.

You remind me of those mediaeval theologians arguing how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.We can agree a propos Burma and many other areas that it was wrong for Thaksin to benefit from personal interests through his PM role.He was of course a major businessman who became rich through the telecoms sector in mainly legitimate ways by Thai standards.It would be unrealistic for him to have disposed of his shareholdings when he came to power, though in an ideal world that's what he should have done (and not to maids, chauffeurs etc).There should have been some Chinese Wall or "blind trust" so that his corporate interests whether in Thailand or overseas didn't benefit from political intervention.Difficult to implement I agree but anyway nobody disputes that Thaksin abused the system and deserved to be punished.

My main point however is that you cannot logically maintain it was wrong for Thaksin to invest alongside the Burmese junta but somehow okay for other Thai interests to do so.That is really all I'm saying.

Actually, I can and DO maintain that as PM (the highest nominally elected position in the land) that he should be held to higher standards than any other investors. Your claims as to him having become rich in "mainly legitimate ways" is arguable even by Thai standards. It wouldn't have been unrealistic for him to divested himself of control of his shares in AIS/Shin etc and to suggest otherwise is to put a blind eye to one of his several major failings as PM. (Others being direct corruption, gross human rights violations set about in HIS handling of HIS war on drugs, Cronyism, nepotism, etc)

[scorecard]

As PM he is held to a higher standard of behaviour than an average investor etc ...

I'm afraid we aren't talking about average investors as my post made clear.I would rather not elaborate further on this.

But you're right Abhisit is not a businessman.But he has strongly promoted Thai investment in Burma, notably in the appalling and outdated infrastructure.I'm not saying he's not right to do so, and from early indications Suu Kyi seems to be modifying her line on inward investment.In terms of moral support to the unpleasant regime however Abhisit stands in the direct line of successive Thai administrations, essentially couldn't care less about the junta's repression.

The trouble is in your eagerness to put Thaksin centre stage of every Thai moral weakness, crime and brutality you end up tying yourself in knots.It just doesn't make sense.

Thaksin's PERSONAL business dealings ---- (at Thai expense) versus Abhisit's need to deal with the de facto government of an ASEAN nation just aren't on the same playing field.

Well said, spot on!

[jayboy]

Actually, I can and DO maintain that as PM (the highest nominally elected position in the land) that he should be held to higher standards than any other investors. Your claims as to him having become rich in "mainly legitimate ways" is arguable even by Thai standards. It wouldn't have been unrealistic for him to divested himself of control of his shares in AIS/Shin etc and to suggest otherwise is to put a blind eye to one of his several major failings as PM. (Others being direct corruption, gross human rights violations set about in HIS handling of HIS war on drugs, Cronyism, nepotism, etc)

I was thinking of adding a rider suggesting we didn't get into discussing the legitimacy of his wealth,fearing it would send you on a weirdly obsessive free association ride.It did.I mistakenly thought my deliberately reasonable tone would calm you down and let you focus on the Burma issue.Didn't work.

And on a point of detail you are completely wrong that Thaksin didn't become rich by legitimate means.The abuses and manipulation of the system started later.Any business oriented Thai - even his enemies - will confirm this.That's partly why there was so much bitterness among the middle class when Thaksin's premiership soured - because the early hopes in a competent modern politician had been dashed.I challenge you to prove any evidence that when Thaksin first came to power there was any concern at all about his "criminality".

I don't disagree with you that a PM should set standards, but many - can't go into detail here - rather eminent Thai individuals and entities have invested in Burma and cosied up to the Junta.All but the myopic will understand.If you feel let down because Thaksin didn't live up to your high moral standards fair enough.But it's absurd to single him out for opprobrium for investing in Burma.Heaven knows there are enough reasons to dislike Thaksin without having to obscure the truth.

[jdinasia]

And yet again you resort to ad hominem attacks .....

I suggest you ask William L. Monson about some of the beginnings of Thaksin's accumulation of wealth. http://www.nationmul...es_30006856.php

BUSINESS DISPUTEThaksin to stand trial for perjury on Sept 18

Court says no need for criminal trial to wait until appeals in civil suit end

The Southern Bang-kok Criminal Court yesterday scheduled a September 18 trial date for a lawsuit filed by an American businessman against caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra over their cable television business venture that dates back to the late 1980s.

Thaksin is accused of perjury, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment.

The court granted a request by the plaintiff, William L Monson, that the criminal trial begins without waiting for a court ruling in a similar civil case.

Monson filed criminal charges on May 2 after winning a civil court case last year against Thaksin.

Thaksin appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in the Court of Appeal.

The court yesterday rejected the defence's request for the criminal trial to begin after the highest court made its ruling on the civil case.

The plaintiff charged Thaksin and four others with perjury for their testimonies given during the trial in a separate case filed by Thaksin in 1995 accusing Monson of embezzlement. Monson was later acquitted.

The American businessman counter-sued on grounds that Thaksin had falsely accused him of a criminal act - a charge that carries a maximum penalty of

seven years' imprisonment.

In early May, Monson emerged at Parliament and called a press conference along with Senator Kraisak Chonhavan, the caretaker chairman of the Upper House committee on foreign affairs.

The Criminal Court yesterday agreed with the plaintiff that the trial should begin soon. It scheduled September 18 for the first hearing into the case.

The legal wrangling goes back to 1989, when Monson claims Thaksin - who was then starting to build his telecommunications empire - violated an agreement to jointly operate a cable television enterprise, seized transmission equipment and levied criminal charges against Monson, his company and his staff.

Both parties filed several lawsuits against each other in Thailand and the United States.

Monson's successful Clearview Cable TV company, based in Seattle, Washington, moved into Thailand in the early 1980s and forged a joint venture, Video Link, with Thaksin's Shinawatra Computer and International Broadcasting Corp in 1985.

Thaksin was initially able to facilitate the required official approvals of the deal, but then the government halted it.

Thaksin and Monson negotiated another agreement, hoping to restart operations.

Monson says Thaksin abruptly violated the agreement and planned to operate the cable system alone.

Police, Monson says, then broke into his offices to remove transmission equipment, while his manager was taken to jail, warrants were issued for Monson and criminal charges levied against him, his company and staff. A court later dismissed the charges.

Your other line of reasoning about other people or institutions investing are a ruse. Thaksin was elected (no matter how much he cheated and manipulated to get into office) and singling out the Prime Minister of a country is by no means unfair ... he should by nature be held to a higher standard.

edit to complete the final sentence

Edited November 17, 2010 by jdinasia

[animatic]

How many trolls can obscure the facts in discussion with a pin for a head.

A theological argument whether to listen to illogical obfuscations

or just get on with discussion with those willing to discuss sans incessant rancor.

[rubl]

How many trolls can obscure the facts in discussion with a pin for a head.

A theological argument whether to listen to illogical obfuscations

or just get on with discussion with those willing to discuss sans incessant rancor.

with jayboy at his best maybe k. Thaksin could replace k. Noppadon, or even Robert A. Neither truth or logic required

Edited November 17, 2010 by rubl

[jayboy]

And yet again you resort to ad hominem attacks .....

Not really I just pointed out that you tend to go off like a rocket with an irrelevant tirade whenever Thaksin is being discussed.

If all you can come up with is the Monson case, that's just sad as Alan Partridge would say.

I can see you and Animatic aren't really familiar with the Thai business sector.If you do come across a Thai businessman of substance, of whatever political stripe, I'm fairly positive he will confirm what I have said about Thaksin's initial accession to wealth.It's not even controversial.Shall we let this rest.If you look carefully you will see I have conceded a number of your points.You however simply rant on, never conceding an issue anbd without even considering I might be trying in my own, okay sometimes annoying way, to make some serious points.There's no fun in debating with someone who never puts himself on occasion in the other fellow's position.Sayonara.

[jdinasia]

Jayboy ---

when I resort to characterizing you in unpleasant ways in almost every post .... oh wait ... I wouldn't do that You stated that Thaksin made his money legitimately. I pointed out that his early success was in part due to theft. I didn't go on to point out the accusations of graft against him in his early sales with government contracts etc.

Your statement about me and the business sector ... well ... as with every characterization you have made about me ... it is wrong I won't speak for Ani .. but quite simply to shift the post about the poster and not what was posted is an ad hominem attack

[brahmburgers]

Thaksin Accepts Reasons for Detaining Suu Kyi

The Irrawaddy - December 13, 2004

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra says he understands why the Burmese government continues to hold opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.

Speaking in his weekly radio address, Thaksin said he found the reasons given by the Rangoon government for Suu Kyi’s continued detention “reasonable enough and convincing.”

Thaksin raised the issue of Suu Ky’s detention when he met the Burmese leader Sr-Gen Than Shwe during the Buddhist conference in Rangoon last week. He said Than Shwe had told him Suu Kyi remained under house arrest “because the last three times that (she) has been released it would always lead to difficulties.”

Thanks for posting that. Since Thaksin keeps getting his clammy visage in the public view (all part of his and and Amsterdam's Hollywood-like game plan; 'no such thing as bad publicity'), it's good so see some reality checks once in awhile - particularly for those who didn't stay abreast of Thai current events of the past 8 years. Also good to get a reminder, of Thaksin's blatant cheating of Mr. Monson. It actually reminds me of some personal biz mis-dealings I've had with Thais. The Thai business credo goes something like this: 'Gaining advantage to get more money (and power and influence) is all that matters. Any considerations of decency or fairness are concerns for pussies. All that counts is the goal of getting as rich as possible.

Unbelievable. For all the stuff I have read about Thaksin over the years, this one takes the biscuit. He is more than an opportunist. He is a liar a cheat and a thoroughly nasty human being.

.....and that's putting it nicely.

[MaiChai]

What amazes me is Taksin puts out these statements like bait for a fish and the press in Thailand gobble it up. He only does this to draw attention to himself because he is really afraid people will forget about him and he has a very big ego. International press ignores these statements; I mean they probably can't remember who he is and its not interesting anyway. Best thing that can happen for Thailand is to forget about Taksin and move on. Maybe the government should ignore his ramblings rather than fall for the bait?

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I challenge you to prove any evidence that when Thaksin first came to power there was any concern at all about his "criminality".

... end removed

(read the post if you want to know what has been removed)

Of course it depends on how you want to define 'first came to power', but already when k. Thaksin was just PM in 2001 he was under investigation of concealing part of his wealth. The part which was 'given' to chauffeur, maid, gardener, etc. Honest mistake. The court accepted his tearful confession of an honest mistake 8 to 7. The pressuring of judges by TRT, k. Thaksin c.s. had nothing to do with it, nothing at all. A judge seems to have said 'he's just voted in, how can we find him guilty?'

Edited November 17, 2010 by rubl

[SpoliaOpima]

begin removed ...

I challenge you to prove any evidence that when Thaksin first came to power there was any concern at all about his "criminality".

... end removed

(read the post if you want to know what has been removed)

Of course it depends on how you want to define 'first came to power', but already when k. Thaksin was just PM in 2001 he was under investigation of concealing part of his wealth. The part which was 'given' to chauffeur, maid, gardener, etc. Honest mistake. The court accepted his tearful confession of an honest mistake 8 to 7. The pressuring of judges by TRT, k. Thaksin c.s. had nothing to do with it, nothing at all. A judge seems to have said 'he's just voted in, how can we find him guilty?'

Exactly. And how Thaksin loved the court then.

Now their decisions are "politically motivated." Bad case of situational ethics.

But when he talks about releasing prisoners he isn't talking about himself. He is talking about people who have presumably been charged with committing acts of violence. No comparison to Daw Suu Kyi.

[newermonkey]

I am not sure if this is a fact or rumor but I heard that Thailand buys most of Burma's natural gas directly from the Junta at a very low price, so "our" goverment has a vested interest in supporting them.

Can anyone correct me on this?

[newermonkey]

I am not sure if this is a fact or rumor but I heard that Thailand buys most of Burma's natural gas directly from the Junta at a very low price, so "our" government has a vested interest in supporting them.

Can anyone correct me on this?

Edited November 18, 2010 by newermonkey

[cdnvic]

Some off topic arguments deleted.

[hammered]

I am not sure if this is a fact or rumor but I heard that Thailand buys most of Burma's natural gas directly from the Junta at a very low price, so "our" government has a vested interest in supporting them.

Can anyone correct me on this?

ASEAN countries do loads of trade with Burma which is a member of ASEAN.

[Buchholz]

Thaksin Accepts Reasons for Detaining Suu Kyi

The Irrawaddy - December 13, 2004

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra says he understands why the Burmese government continues to hold opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.

Speaking in his weekly radio address, Thaksin said he found the reasons given by the Rangoon government for Suu Kyi’s continued detention “reasonable enough and convincing.”

Thaksin raised the issue of Suu Ky’s detention when he met the Burmese leader Sr-Gen Than Shwe during the Buddhist conference in Rangoon last week. He said Than Shwe had told him Suu Kyi remained under house arrest “because the last three times that (she) has been released it would always lead to difficulties.”

Thanks for posting that. Since Thaksin keeps getting his clammy visage in the public view (all part of his and and Amsterdam's Hollywood-like game plan

Another of Thaksin and Amsterdam's game plans?

Democrat MP Slams Pocketbook Criticizing Judicial System and Monarch

A Democrat MP is demanding prosecution of those involved in publishing a pocketbook authored by Robert Amsterdam, the legal adviser of self exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, due to its offensive content with reference to the monarchy and Thailand's justice system.

Democrat MP for Bangkok Watchara Petchthong issued a statement at the Parliament demanding the prosecution of anyone involved in publishing a controversial pocketbook titled “A White Book: Bangkok Massacre.”

The book is authored by Robert Amsterdam, the attorney of fugitive and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and is published by Amsterdam's law firm, Amsterdam and Perof.

Thaksin is said to have written the preface to the book.

Watchara alleged that the book features content which can be perceived as an insult to the Thai judicial system and the monarchy.

The Democrat also submitted a petition to House Speaker Chai Chidchob, requesting that a probe be launched on the matter.

-- Tan Network 2010-11-18

Amsterdam's book cover:

Book preface with Thaksin's signature at the bottom:

TAN Network

.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

R. Amsterdam's "white paper" book on Thai crisis has been taken off some shelves in Thailand after Democrats claimed lese majeste -matichon. /via @tulsathit

Thailand Live Thursday 18 Nov 2010

[rubl]

I am not sure if this is a fact or rumor but I heard that Thailand buys most of Burma's natural gas directly from the Junta at a very low price, so "our" goverment has a vested interest in supporting them.

Can anyone correct me on this?

No need to correct you when you say you're not sure on this

Yahooing around gives a.o. this from April 2009

"Thailand's largest energy firm PTT Plc Monday said it has joined the race against China and India in a bid for exclusive rights to military-run Myanmar's northwestern natural gas reserves."

( http://www.indoburmanews.net/indian-buz-in-burma/gas/gas_3 )

Doesn't sound like a 'dirty deal' to me.

Edited November 18, 2010 by rubl