Germans Decline Comment On Thaksin Visit Claim

[rixalex]

You get it wrong.

It's in the opening post : " The German government declared Thaksin persona non grata, banning him from entering the country, after his repeated phone-in addresses to anti-government rallies in Thailand."

I am aware that was the reason given for the ban, but would still have thought that the criminal conviction played a part in the decision. If not, it certainly should have affected his visa application.

The ban was not based on his "conviction" (no democracy will recognized a conviction by a military junta that has ousted a democratically elected government) but because no country will accept that someone conducts from its soil hostile activities against a friendly government. It's the same reason why Thaksin was banned from the UK.

Now that, for obvious reasons, Thaksin has stopped his "hostile" activities, there is no more reason to stop him to visit the country.

You get it wrong.

For one, the conviction was passed down by the Thai courts, not by the junta, and the decision was made whilst Thaksin's proxy party held office, and for two, the UK did not ban him, they simply denied to renew his visa request.

[rixalex]

You summed it up very good above and it is on days like this that I feel slightly ashamed to be German.

Either he is a convicted criminal on the run or he isn't. A "change in political situation" should not change the status of somebodies conviction...

I sympathise with you Tom. As an English man i felt ashamed when the English FA announced that Thaksin had passed their fit and proper person's test (although knowing the English FA as i do, it wasn't such a surprise!).

[Cnxforever]

yes how short sighted some governments can be - when I wrote here - a few month after Thaksin was ousted in 2006 - that it is only a question of time and he will be back in power - I was told I was insane even to think about Thaksin ever being back in Thailand - let alone back in power.

Looks like the British and German governments in their short-sightedness where not able to read the sentiment of Thai people correctly and thought his enemies could keep him out forever - well they should have talked to some regular Thais what they think about the people overthrowing the government they had elected in a landslide and not the Bangkok elite.

Why would any democratic government deny refuge to a prime minister of a friendly country who had been ousted in an illegal coup in the first place? They should have strongly condemned the coup and take a tough stand against the criminals who staged it. Isnt that what democratic countries should do?

Were all the overpaid diplomats and intelligence agencies to naïve not to say to stupid to read the signs on the wall?

Germany at least let him stay unofficially in Bonn for several month - the British though denied him re-entry and cancelled his visa while at the same time giving refuge to a number of criminals from different countries bringing the billions they have stolen in their own countries with them living in luxury in the UK.

And Abhisits statement

It was up to the new government led by Thaksin's younger sister Yingluck to allow the former premier to travel to countries more easily, he said, adding that the new government was expected to treat Thaksin as any other fugitive.

Is the most stupid thing I have heard in a while a PM ousted by a coup, investigated - by a military installed body and sentenced by a military installed court this sentence has as much credibility in the international community as a Thai foreign minister with the diplomatic skills of a bulldog!

We will all soon see how long Thaksins memory is he will surely remember the countries who have treated him with kindness during his darkest hours.

Oh and I wonder why Khasit still has such a big mouth - and is not already packing up and moving abroad - but who will want him?

[wave]

You get it wrong.

It's in the opening post : " The German government declared Thaksin persona non grata, banning him from entering the country, after his repeated phone-in addresses to anti-government rallies in Thailand."

I am aware that was the reason given for the ban, but would still have thought that the criminal conviction played a part in the decision. If not, it certainly should have affected his visa application.

The ban was not based on his "conviction" (no democracy will recognized a conviction by a military junta that has ousted a democratically elected government) but because no country will accept that someone conducts from its soil hostile activities against a friendly government. It's the same reason why Thaksin was banned from the UK.

Now that, for obvious reasons, Thaksin has stopped his "hostile" activities, there is no more reason to stop him to visit the country.

You get it wrong.

For one, the conviction was passed down by the Thai courts, not by the junta, and the decision was made whilst Thaksin's proxy party held office, and for two, the UK did not ban him, they simply denied to renew his visa request.

The reality is any extradition request based on the corruption conviction in Thailand would most likely be thrown out of court.... a lawyer would be able to effectively argue that the charges were politicly motivated.

I don't recall the government actually going to court to file extradition charges, no doubt they were also aware of the likely outcome.

[rixalex]

The reality is any extradition request based on the corruption conviction in Thailand would most likely be thrown out of court.... a lawyer would be able to effectively argue that the charges were politicly motivated.

I don't recall the government actually going to court to file extradition charges, no doubt they were also aware of the likely outcome.

The discussion of extradition charges is quite different from the discussion of visas and bans. Getting convicted criminals back to serve sentences is rarely easily, and there are numerous cases of this. Doesn't necessarily reflect on the validity of the conviction.

[rixalex]

yes how short sighted some governments can be - when I wrote here - a few month after Thaksin was ousted in 2006 - that it is only a question of time and he will be back in power - I was told I was insane even to think about Thaksin ever being back in Thailand - let alone back in power.

Perhaps not insane for predicting it, but for wishing it, just maybe.

Looks like the British and German governments in their short-sightedness where not able to read the sentiment of Thai people correctly and thought his enemies could keep him out forever - well they should have talked to some regular Thais what they think about the people overthrowing the government they had elected in a landslide – and not the Bangkok elite.

Since when should governments take into consideration public opinion when deciding legal matters?

Why would any democratic government deny refuge to a prime minister of a friendly country who had been ousted in an illegal coup in the first place? They should have strongly condemned the coup and take a tough stand against the criminals who staged it. Isn't that what democratic countries should do?

The refusal to offer refuge to Thaksin had nothing to do with him being ousted, which many countries did express regret at. But when the military stood by their promise for elections within the time frame set, this was acknowledged as being a positive step and as such, diplomatic relations remained friendly.

Is the most stupid thing I have heard in a while – a PM ousted by a coup, investigated - by a military installed body – and sentenced by a military installed court – this sentence has as much credibility in the international community – as a Thai foreign minister with the diplomatic skills of a bulldog!

Pure unadulterated red propaganda, to say that the court that sentenced Thaksin was a military installed one.

As for credibility, what i wonder do you think the international community thinks of Thaksin's promise to respect the court's decision, and then the subsequent revelation that he attempted to bribe it, before he then ran away when they found him guilty?

[wave]

The reality is any extradition request based on the corruption conviction in Thailand would most likely be thrown out of court.... a lawyer would be able to effectively argue that the charges were politicly motivated.

I don't recall the government actually going to court to file extradition charges, no doubt they were also aware of the likely outcome.

The discussion of extradition charges is quite different from the discussion of visas and bans. Getting convicted criminals back to serve sentences is rarely easily, and there are numerous cases of this. Doesn't necessarily reflect on the validity of the conviction.

Fair point, but, considering that he's been able to travel relatively easily for the last 5 years the conviction has had little impact in his ability to obtain visas. Taking this into account it would be fair to assume that the countries that have issued him visas in the past placed little importance in him being a convicted criminal. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.....

As mentioned in a prior post the revoking or cancelling of visas appears to be due to the anti-goverment phone-ins he was conducting while resident.

[rixalex]

Fair point, but, considering that he's been able to travel relatively easily for the last 5 years the conviction has had little impact in his ability to obtain visas. Taking this into account it would be fair to assume that the countries that have issued him visas in the past placed little importance in him being a convicted criminal. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.....

I'm not so sure that travelling for him has been that easy, otherwise why choose the places that he has chosen to reside? I can't imagine Montenegro would have been his first choice - no offence to Montenegrans.

As for the countries that have allowed him to enter, what chance do you think you and i would have had, were we convicted criminals on the run, of successfully obtaining visas? Zero i would say. Now would that be because they believe we are guilty of our convictions, but can't believe Thaksin is, or because we are normal everyday chaps with normal everyday bank accounts, whereas Thaksin is a billionaire with money to invest? Feel free to draw your own conclusions...

Edited July 28, 2011 by rixalex

[nycpal44]

Something tells me that the German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle just became proud owner of a Villa in Montenegro

[JurgenG]

Fair point, but, considering that he's been able to travel relatively easily for the last 5 years the conviction has had little impact in his ability to obtain visas. Taking this into account it would be fair to assume that the countries that have issued him visas in the past placed little importance in him being a convicted criminal. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.....

I'm not so sure that travelling for him has been that easy, otherwise why choose the places that he has chosen to reside? I can't imagine Montenegro would have been his first choice - no offence to Montenegrans.

As for the countries that have allowed him to enter, what chance do you think you and i would have had, were we convicted criminals on the run, of successfully obtaining visas? Zero i would say. Now would that be because they believe we are guilty of our convictions, but can't believe Thaksin is, or because we are normal everyday chaps with normal everyday bank accounts, whereas Thaksin is a billionaire with money to invest? Feel free to draw your own conclusions...

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

[patjem]

yes how short sighted some governments can be - when I wrote here - a few month after Thaksin was ousted in 2006 - that it is only a question of time and he will be back in power - I was told I was insane even to think about Thaksin ever being back in Thailand - let alone back in power.

Looks like the British and German governments in their short-sightedness where not able to read the sentiment of Thai people correctly and thought his enemies could keep him out forever - well they should have talked to some regular Thais what they think about the people overthrowing the government they had elected in a landslide – and not the Bangkok elite.

Why would any democratic government deny refuge to a prime minister of a friendly country who had been ousted in an illegal coup in the first place? They should have strongly condemned the coup and take a tough stand against the criminals who staged it. Isn’t that what democratic countries should do?

Were all the overpaid diplomats and intelligence agencies to naïve – not to say to stupid to read the signs on the wall?

Germany at least let him stay “unofficially” in Bonn for several month - the British though denied him re-entry and cancelled his visa – while at the same time giving refuge to a number of criminals from different countries bringing the billions they have stolen in their own countries with them living in luxury in the UK.

And Abhisit’s statement

It was up to the new government led by Thaksin's younger sister Yingluck to allow the former premier to travel to countries more easily, he said, adding that the new government was expected to treat Thaksin as any other fugitive.”

Is the most stupid thing I have heard in a while – a PM ousted by a coup, investigated - by a military installed body – and sentenced by a military installed court – this sentence has as much credibility in the international community – as a Thai foreign minister with the diplomatic skills of a bulldog!

We will all soon see how long Thaksin’s memory is – he will surely remember the countries who have treated him with kindness during his darkest hours.

Oh and I wonder why Khasit still has such a big mouth - and is not already packing up and moving abroad - but who will want him?

Since the coup you mention, there was an election, in which a Khun_T proxy was installed, and furthermore, a separate arm of civil service, the courts, who are separate from the government or military carried out the trial.

Sorry to have correct your assumption that the military tried him, or the government run by one of his own proxies. Hence to say your statement is patently incorrect.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Fair point, but, considering that he's been able to travel relatively easily for the last 5 years the conviction has had little impact in his ability to obtain visas. Taking this into account it would be fair to assume that the countries that have issued him visas in the past placed little importance in him being a convicted criminal. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.....

I'm not so sure that travelling for him has been that easy, otherwise why choose the places that he has chosen to reside? I can't imagine Montenegro would have been his first choice - no offence to Montenegrans.

As for the countries that have allowed him to enter, what chance do you think you and i would have had, were we convicted criminals on the run, of successfully obtaining visas? Zero i would say. Now would that be because they believe we are guilty of our convictions, but can't believe Thaksin is, or because we are normal everyday chaps with normal everyday bank accounts, whereas Thaksin is a billionaire with money to invest? Feel free to draw your own conclusions...

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Well said.

[wave]

Fair point, but, considering that he's been able to travel relatively easily for the last 5 years the conviction has had little impact in his ability to obtain visas. Taking this into account it would be fair to assume that the countries that have issued him visas in the past placed little importance in him being a convicted criminal. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.....

I'm not so sure that travelling for him has been that easy, otherwise why choose the places that he has chosen to reside? I can't imagine Montenegro would have been his first choice - no offence to Montenegrans.

As for the countries that have allowed him to enter, what chance do you think you and i would have had, were we convicted criminals on the run, of successfully obtaining visas? Zero i would say. Now would that be because they believe we are guilty of our convictions, but can't believe Thaksin is, or because we are normal everyday chaps with normal everyday bank accounts, whereas Thaksin is a billionaire with money to invest? Feel free to draw your own conclusions...

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

If we were democratically elected PM's ousted in a military coup I think there would be a good chance of us receiving visas. This is what I was alluding to in my previous posts.

JurgenG is spot on with his analysis.

[gregb]

I think that there is more behind this than meets the eyes - I just don't know what it is....

Some 4-6 weeks ago there was an article in a German newspaper claiming that Mr. T was sighted in Munich for a secret meeting with the (assumed) owner of the 737 - and that was when he was still banned from entering the country due to an illegally obtained visa.

The newspaper strongly suggested that the German secret service (BND) somehow helped him to by-pass the passport control.

I agree. There are just too many coincidences here. This just smells like something is going on...I just can't figure out what it is.

I will admit that this time I'm stumped. Don't even have a working hypothesis at what the underlying game might be...and that makes me very uneasy. The two Thai players I can see...they have a history and there lots of things they could wish to talk about. But what is the German connection in that?

I really wish Thailand believed in investigative journalism...whatever is underfoot it could have ramifications for the country and I'd like to have some advance notice of that in case I need to prepare. I'm sure this is not what it appears to be on the surface.

[MikeOboe57]

Here's the story how Thaksin got his first residence permit in Germany:

Sueddeutsche Zeitung Koelnische Rundschau Scribd (english)

on Dec 29, 2008 Thaksin showed up at the Immigration office (Ausländeramt) in Bonn, producing a Schengen Visa issued in France, to apply for a 1 year residence permit. He was accompanied by a high ranking local police officer (Gerd Steffen), an attorney and an infamous private eye, Werner Mauss, who called himself Richard Nelson. Allegedly he (Mauss) claimed to be an agent for the German Secret Service (BND - Bundesnachrichtendienst).

Thaksin allegedly used his lawyer's address in Bonn Hochkreuzallee 63, in the application form. The house is (at least now) owned by the President of the German Bridge Association. It can therefore not be confirmed whether he was that aforementioned lawyer.

As Thaksin's name was not yet in the files of unwanted persons, he was given the residence permit without delay. At the same time I had already been struggling for 7 months to get a residence permit for my Thai wife. It was going to take another 12 months plus a successfully passed language course.

When the German government learnt about Thaksin's whereabouts they first thought it to be a BND plot, as the German Secret Service had always had a crush on Thaksin and used to write very favourable dossiers. However it became pretty soon clear, that Mauss/Nelson had acted on his own and had (allegedly) just used a bit of name-dropping to get things done.

Anyway, the German government regarded Thaksin's stay as an obstacle to German-Thai relations, revoked his residence permit on May 29, 2009 and ordered him to leave the country, which he did.

Thaksin's phone-ins were never a factor in revoking his residence permit.

[gregb]

Another piece of interesting information is that one of the founding members of the TRT was Kantathi Suphamongkhon. He was also Thaksin's foreign minister at the time of the coup. Now interestingly, his father was the Thai ambassador to Germany for many years, and Kantathi spent a good portion of his adolescence there.

Right after the coup, Kanathi apparently flew to Germany for an undisclosed reason. He also purportedly met the TRT's interior minister there as well.

It would appear that some powerful faction in the current German government has extremely good relations with Thaksin and the TRT. They probably stand to gain something now that Thaksin is back in power. Given the way they have flip flopped on his entry visa since he retook control of the government, it would appear they were never concerned with justice or Thaksin's criminal record. They simply asked him to leave the country for the sake of expediency.

Given the known issues between Thaksin and the owner of the 737, and given the apparently quite cozy relationship Thaksin has with powerful people in the German government, the 737 story takes on a different perspective. We can't discuss it, but I personally don't believe these two things are independent.

Germany needs to be careful here. Taking sides in the upcoming power struggle that will occur when the unthinkable event happens in Thailand might be a very bad strategy. They're being pretty brazen about their support though. They must feel confident.

[473geo]

The airplane is impounded and some days later Thaksin, that already lost his previous permission to stay based on it being given through corruption in the German local government, crosses some palms with silver and is once again able to fly and visit the nation?

I doubt he needed to cross palms with anything other than an offer to resolve a political incident......

[jackr]

You summed it up very good above and it is on days like this that I feel slightly ashamed to be German.

Only on days like this?

[whybother]

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Maybe you also need to stick to facts.

Thaksin was a democratically elected PM that dissolved parliament and called an election which failed to get the constitutionally required number of elected MPs. He was then a care-taker PM that stood down. He then failed to organise an election in the required time frame.

Just because the coup occurred while Thaksin was in the care-taker PM position does not suddenly make him the elected PM at the time of the coup.

[TAWP]

Is the most stupid thing I have heard in a while – a PM ousted by a coup, investigated - by a military installed body – and sentenced by a military installed court – this sentence has as much credibility in the international community – as a Thai foreign minister with the diplomatic skills of a bulldog!

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Somehow I found these unrelated comments fitting.

[Ricardo]

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Same old revisionist BS.

- Thaksin wasn't democratically-elected, only a time-expired caretaker-PM, when the illegal coup overthrew him.

- He returned to Thailand for some months after the first subsequent election, but then went into self-exile, when it became clear that the courts were going to rule him guilty, on the first charge (of many) against him. His proxy-party were in-power at that time. The law he had broken was a long-standing (pre-coup) one designed to deter top-political-office-holders from corruption.

- He is also now guilty of having 'done a runner', which is delaying several other court-cases against him.

Sorry for having to correct your "facts".

Edited July 29, 2011 by Ricardo

[rixalex]

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

Are you really this deeply in denial? Thaksin's trial that led to his conviction, that came under his own proxy government, that he promised to respect, that he attempted to bribe, is every bit as valid, if not a lot more, than the assets concealment trial in 2001.

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

Since when did you become public speaker for those countries?

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup.

As whybother has pointed out, he was not PM at the time of the coup; and as for exile, you omitted to mention the self-imposed bit, which changes things considerably

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Your problem is not sticking with facts, it's that you don't bother starting with them. Downhill from that point onward....

[Thaddeus]

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Same old revisionist BS.

- Thaksin wasn't democratically-elected, only a time-expired caretaker-PM, when the illegal coup overthrew him.

It's just a small point, but it is worth remembering and quite poignant, that the coup was without bloodshed.

[JurgenG]

Same old revisionist BS.

Takes one to know one

- Thaksin wasn't democratically-elected, only a time-expired caretaker-PM, when the illegal coup overthrew him.

Doesn't change the fact that he owed his position to a democratic process.

But we agree that the coup was illegal and cast serious doubts about the legality of everything that followed.

- He returned to Thailand for some months after the first subsequent election, but then went into self-exile, when it became clear that the courts were going to rule him guilty, on the first charge (of many) against him. His proxy-party were in-power at that time. The law he had broken was a long-standing (pre-coup) one designed to deter top-political-office-holders from corruption.

I'm not a lawyer but what I understand is that the law was changed after the coup and applied retroactively to find him guilty. But I would accept to be corrected if he you could point out which "long standing" law he had broken.

Furthermore, you can't be serious when you say "His proxy-party were in-power at that time". It was never allowed to govern and was quickly forced out in a very undemocratic manner.

When you talk about revisionist BS, you really know your classics !

[changraider]

You both would make more sense if Thaksin were a convicted criminal on the run

But, as far as foreign countries are involved, he is not.

He is a democratically elected PM on exile following a military coup. Until recently he would have been most welcomed anywhere in the world as long as he refrains from political activities. What he refused to do and that was the reason of his troubles.

Now that he is no longer considered an opponent (for obvious reasons) to a friendly foreign government, he is welcome again.

End of the story.

It would be nice and more constructive if you stick with facts instead of building scenarios on imaginary assumptions.

Maybe you also need to stick to facts.

Thaksin was a democratically elected PM that dissolved parliament and called an election which failed to get the constitutionally required number of elected MPs. He was then a care-taker PM that stood down. He then failed to organise an election in the required time frame.

Just because the coup occurred while Thaksin was in the care-taker PM position does not suddenly make him the elected PM at the time of the coup.

As far as I know the recognised facts are that Taksin's party won 460 seats in the 2006 election, up from 375 in the 2005 election. The 2006 election was nullified because the opposition boycotted it. I'm not personally aligned one way or the other in Thai politics, but I am genuinely astonished at the number of farangs on LV who (seem to) align themselves with military interventions rather than the repeated and overwhelming democratic decisions of the Thai people.

[hammered]

Sensible of the German government not to get drawn into anything with a government that wont be there in a few days. Relationships with the incoming government and their appointed minister are far more important and can only be potentially harmed by a ding dong with the outgoing mob.

[AleG]

As far as I know the recognised facts are that Taksin's party won 460 seats in the 2006 election, up from 375 in the 2005 election. The 2006 election was nullified because the opposition boycotted it. I'm not personally aligned one way or the other in Thai politics, but I am genuinely astonished at the number of farangs on LV who (seem to) align themselves with military interventions rather than the repeated and overwhelming democratic decisions of the Thai people.

I think by far the problem is not the democratic rights of the people and their exercise, the problem is having a criminal at the helm of a country.

[PETDCAT]

I would bet He will pay the bill and be compensated later by his Sister. The thai people will fall all over themselves thanking Him for saving Thailands honor. And many will believe it was His own money and it was done out of love of country. Brilliant PR move.

[changraider]

As far as I know the recognised facts are that Taksin's party won 460 seats in the 2006 election, up from 375 in the 2005 election. The 2006 election was nullified because the opposition boycotted it. I'm not personally aligned one way or the other in Thai politics, but I am genuinely astonished at the number of farangs on LV who (seem to) align themselves with military interventions rather than the repeated and overwhelming democratic decisions of the Thai people.

I think by far the problem is not the democratic rights of the people and their exercise, the problem is having a criminal at the helm of a country.

Well at least you're honest in your lack of respect for democracy.

[Ricardo]

Same old revisionist BS.

Takes one to know one

- Thaksin wasn't democratically-elected, only a time-expired caretaker-PM, when the illegal coup overthrew him.

Doesn't change the fact that he owed his position to a democratic process.

But we agree that the coup was illegal and cast serious doubts about the legality of everything that followed.

- He returned to Thailand for some months after the first subsequent election, but then went into self-exile, when it became clear that the courts were going to rule him guilty, on the first charge (of many) against him. His proxy-party were in-power at that time. The law he had broken was a long-standing (pre-coup) one designed to deter top-political-office-holders from corruption.

I'm not a lawyer but what I understand is that the law was changed after the coup and applied retroactively to find him guilty. But I would accept to be corrected if he you could point out which "long standing" law he had broken.

Furthermore, you can't be serious when you say "His proxy-party were in-power at that time". It was never allowed to govern and was quickly forced out in a very undemocratic manner.

When you talk about revisionist BS, you really know your classics !

Puerile denial, I'm afraid, one more for the Ignore-function.