Yingluck: Thaksin Case To Be Reviewed

[whybother]

Well said. In regard to your last paragraph here's another important point - precedent - which carries a lot of weight when prosecutors, judges etc., have to make decisions.

Amnesty for thaksin and all the others tangled up with the last few years (regardless of color etc.) would create a precedent which is highly highly undesireable.

In the future when a lawyer / barrister brings up this precedent as a defense / as a strong factor in pushing for the decision the lawyer / barriser is aiming for, then the prosecutors, judges, courts etc, will have no choice but to 'respect' the precedent.

If it doesn't work this way, (if precedent is not repected) then judicial process is a total and complete farce, and we are all one step closer to a lawless country.

Highly highly undesirable.

Actually, I thought "precedence" wasn't used much in Thai law.

[rubl]

Well said. In regard to your last paragraph here's another important point - precedent - which carries a lot of weight when prosecutors, judges etc., have to make decisions.

Amnesty for thaksin and all the others tangled up with the last few years (regardless of color etc.) would create a precedent which is highly highly undesireable.

In the future when a lawyer / barrister brings up this precedent as a defense / as a strong factor in pushing for the decision the lawyer / barriser is aiming for, then the prosecutors, judges, courts etc, will have no choice but to 'respect' the precedent.

If it doesn't work this way, (if precedent is not repected) then judicial process is a total and complete farce, and we are all one step closer to a lawless country.

Highly highly undesirable.

From Wiki:

"Supreme Court Opinions and other Judicial Decisions - Judicial precedent in Thailand is not binding. Courts are not bound to follow their own decisions and lower courts are not bound to follow precedents set by higher courts. However, Thai law has been influenced by common law precedent. Courts are therefore significantly influenced by earlier decisions or decisions of higher courts. The Supreme Court of Justice publishes it decisions, known as the Supreme Court Opinions. These are frequently used as secondary authority and are numbered according to the year issued.[3][4] Other judicial decisions or rulings are published by the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Thailand

[animatic]

Well said. In regard to your last paragraph here's another important point - precedent - which carries a lot of weight when prosecutors, judges etc., have to make decisions.

Amnesty for thaksin and all the others tangled up with the last few years (regardless of color etc.) would create a precedent which is highly highly undesireable.

In the future when a lawyer / barrister brings up this precedent as a defense / as a strong factor in pushing for the decision the lawyer / barriser is aiming for, then the prosecutors, judges, courts etc, will have no choice but to 'respect' the precedent.

If it doesn't work this way, (if precedent is not repected) then judicial process is a total and complete farce, and we are all one step closer to a lawless country.

Highly highly undesirable.

Actually, I thought "precedence" wasn't used much in Thai law.

Technically no, as far as earlier rulings becoming future law to be followed absolutely bu all following judges. But functional or moral precedence does have an effect on most judgments.

In this case the Shinawatra clan seems to have respect for laws that benefit themselves and harm their enemies, and run away or complain loudly or try to override (Pasterygate) those that harm their interests or egos.

We can see the effect on the nation with the parallel inverse same-day rulings of 2001, one favoring the newly elected Thaksin, and the other with an ordinary mortal who didn't just win... he lost. Thaksin won, and Thaksin dined off that ever since. Making it much harder to prosecute any and all because suddenly POPULARITY overrides LAW.

The will of the people is for MP's and the laws they make, legal precedent should always be the preserve of Judges, not subject to the will of the people, unless the LAWS change..

Edited July 8, 2011 by animatic

[DumFarang]

...and therefore she's stupid? That's what this thread started out as, a claim that she's not smart. I've seen no evidence to prove she's mentally inferior.

I don't think anyone is saying she is stupid. Just that her education history is ok, but not exactly dazzling, and her employment history has entirely been at her brother's companies, which makes judging the job she did at those places difficult because of the issue of nepotism.

Perhaps had she returned from her studies in America and refused the offer of jumping up the corporate ladder that her brother was offering, to instead make her own way, on her own skills and merits, we might have a better grasp of who she is and what her capabilities are.

Can't argue with that.

[bigbamboo]

Don't blame Yingluck. She is only saying what she is told to say.

[tommytouch]

Should read "Newsflash... Thaksin's case to be reviewed... by Thaksin. He promises himself a fair trial."

[maidu]

I've been visiting, and later residing in Thailand for a quarter century. I have a pretty good handle on how Thais think. Ms Yingluck knows what she wants in regards to letting her brother off the hook and enabling him to get his hands on the confiscated billions. She won't say so directly, as that would be an un-Asian thing to do. Instead, she will continue to hedge, and duck the issue, and mince words. When enough time has gone by (in her and her bro's estimation) they will go ahead and try to implement their plan. It won't be now. But as sure as butter melts on a hot grill, it will be implemented within a year from now.

BTW, all this amnesty talk has a side effect which no one in gov't is mentioning: It belittles the laws of the land. Plus it renders useless all the thousands of hours of investigative and judicial work that's been devoted to trying to prosecute law breakers. Offering amnesty effectively says to all the investigators, the law enforcement, law-makers, and judicial professionals "OK, your efforts amount to nothing. We're letting everyone off the hook because we want Thaksin to get a big chunk of money back." Sorry suckers.

Well said. In regard to your last paragraph here's another important point - precedent - which carries a lot of weight when prosecutors, judges etc., have to make decisions.

Amnesty for thaksin and all the others tangled up with the last few years (regardless of color etc.) would create a precedent which is highly highly undesireable.

In the future when a lawyer / barrister brings up this precedent as a defense / as a strong factor in pushing for the decision the lawyer / barriser is aiming for, then the prosecutors, judges, courts etc, will have no choice but to 'respect' the precedent.

If it doesn't work this way, (if precedent is not repected) then judicial process is a total and complete farce, and we are all one step closer to a lawless country.

Highly highly undesirable.

Granting amnesty will reinforce the message (to the Thai people) that Thai justice is predicated on 'who you know' and 'what you represent.' Though Thai justice pretends to be concerned with legalities, the way it manifests has more to do with the flapping flags of politics, and the subjective whims or jurists and politicians.

[hyperdimension]

Look at Thaksin try to explain the tax-free sale of ShinCorp to Temasek at the September 18, 2006 Council on Foreign Relations meeting in New York:

The sale of your company, Prime Minister, to Singapore was very controversial. Would you like to comment on it?

THAKSIN: Yes. (Laughter.) Yes. My—the company has been transferred to my children before I become the prime minister, under the old constitution, under the old law. And one day, they want to sell because it had been approached. And I think it’s a good idea so I don’t have to be—alleged of conflict of interest anymore.

So they agreed to sell. And after the sale, I’d been attacked on not paying tax, which is actually, you know, the—a capital gain in Thailand’s stock exchange—we have no tax involved, which Mr. Greenberg know very well, because he (has ?) so many stock there. (Laughter.) Is tax-exempt, no tax.

And someone trying to say that, “Oh, you know if you sell noodles, you have to pay tax. But we sell the companies, why you do not pay tax?” Sale of noodle is—you sell goods, goods is subject to be taxed, but not the capital gains of selling shares. So that is confusing the message. And at that time, I’ve been—really, you know, I’ve been attacked by all the press, and the confusion is there.

And I’m trying to open the Parliament for debate, but the opposition said that no useful, we not participate in that debate because we have to find the “no confidence” motion, which they cannot do it because they don’t have enough votes to do it. So, but I said, I’m generous enough to open the general debate for them to ask me, I can answer. But they don’t agree. So I have to dissolve the house and let the people make decision on their own, whether they want me to come back or not. So that’s why the controversy comes.

Actually, it’s really—you know, all the money is in Thailand. You know, we bring the—the sale brings U.S. dollars to Thailand, at that time about 2 billion U.S. dollars, and the baht, stronger at that time, because of the money flow in. And, actually, that money is going to help build business, the economy in Thailand because we have new money—fresh money into Thailand for 2 billion U.S. dollars.

But it’s very difficult to explain at that time, and I’m in awkward position to explain because my children is the one who own the company, so they are still very young. But anyway, I think this has paved the way that we don’t have to be alleged of conflict of interest anymore because we have no (business anymore ?).

GREENBERG: Thank you for responding to that.

Source: A Conversation with Thaksin Shinawatra, Prime Minister of Thailand

:lol:

The trascriber did a good job of reproducing Thaksin's manner of speech.

Edited July 11, 2011 by hyperdimension