Charter Change Part Of Plan To Whitewash Thaksin

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL

Charter change part of plan to whitewash ex-PM

By The Nation

Thaksin wants to come home - but not if it means doing time in jail for the Ratchadaphisek land scandal

A controversial plot of land in central Bangkok has been sold. The block on Ratchadaphisek Road was reportedly bought for Bt1.8 billion - more than Bt1 billion above the amount paid by the ex-wife of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra paid in the early 2000s. Land prices rise and fall, but a Bt1-billion difference is no figure to easily dismiss. Thaksin was accused of corruption back then, because he and Pojaman were the first couple at the time and laws prohibited them from doing business transactions with the state. He was later convicted, but fled Thailand in late 2008, just before the Supreme Court announced its verdict, to avoid a two-year jail term. The rest is history; he has lived the life of a fugitive abroad ever since.

The issue is, he wants to come back to Thailand but doesn't want to spend even a single day in jail. He and his defenders have described the conviction as political persecution. He doesn't even want an amnesty because it would imply that he really did something wrong. He wants, it appears, a total whitewash.

Whether or how the Pheu Thai government will carry out its ambiguous "amnesty" plan and fulfil his wish remains to be seen. The plan appears to include getting rid of Article 309 of the current charter in order to annul or weaken all the legal procedures against Thaksin in the aftermath of the 2006 coup. Those procedures, which were undertaken before the eventual Supreme Court verdict, have been used by Thaksin defenders to back up claims that he had fled political persecution, not a criminal conviction.

That's where the controversy lies. His defenders look at the procedures but others look at the intent of the laws. Although Thaksin was convicted after a military coup, and was investigated largely through processes sanctioned by the coup-makers, the guilty verdict was based on seemingly indisputable facts.

Those facts are: Thaksin was prime minister; his spouse bought a piece of state-auctioned land with his consent; the Financial Institutions Development Fund is a state agency; the purchase was prohibited by anti-graft laws, which came into existence even before the coup-makers threw him out of power.

Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true. But the more important point is that Thaksin broke the laws he knew existed in his own country. The laws were enacted to stop or discourage rampant corruption by those holding state power. Pojaman was warned before she bought the land. There were plenty of news commentaries cautioning against her trying to acquire the plot while her husband, as prime minister, loomed over the Financial Institutions Development Fund.

Was the coup bad? Yes. Would Thaksin have been brought to justice without the coup? No. Was Thaksin investigated largely under mechanisms set up by the coup-makers? Yes. Was the guilty verdict based on laws that were already there even before the coup and delivered by the normal court system? Yes. This old debate remains relevant and it has taken on some urgency, now that his party has been swept back to power.

With democracy being respected by all, evident in the Pheu Thai Party's smooth ascension to power, what should we and Thaksin do about the Ratchada land verdict? Should Thaksin accept that he broke laws prohibiting him and his ex-wife acquiring the land? Should he accept that he broke the law before he was removed him as prime minister?

Article 309 is there to protect the coup-makers. But it is also there to deter a scenario like the one that is forming. A whitewash of Thaksin could send everything back to square one, where a healthy election mandate means those who won are untouchable.

Amnesty can be good for reconciliation. But it has to be really fair and just. As importantly, it must not be rushed through with results of one election used as a propeller. Elections are there for good reasons, but so are courts and the laws of the land.

-- The Nation 2011-08-21

[moe666]

This should bring out the pros and the cons.

[JurgenG]

What that editorial says ?

That we had a military coup, 5 years of almost incessant riots, half of the nation ready to kill the other half for what ?

A controversial land deal ?

Because at the end, if you remove all the obviously politically motivated court actions, at the end without real legal basis, that's all what is left.

A controversial land deal !

[Thaddeus]

What that editorial says ?

That we had a military coup, 5 years of almost incessant riots, half of the nation ready to kill the other half for what ?

A controversial land deal ?

Because at the end, if you remove all the obviously politically motivated court actions, at the end without real legal basis, that's all what is left.

A controversial land deal !

Read this part again.

Was the coup bad? Yes. Would Thaksin have been brought to justice without the coup? No. Was Thaksin investigated largely under mechanisms set up by the coup-makers? Yes. Was the guilty verdict based on laws that were already there even before the coup and delivered by the normal court system? Yes.

[ozzieman05]

So the fact is Thaskin was convicted for breaking a law that existed before the Coup

So how can they call it a political ambush on Thaskin

Seems the only real law in Thailand is that if you have money, the law does not apply to you

The Red shirts want true Democracy

Is this not the law of the land by the people for the people

Not for the rich

[JurgenG]

Just want to make it clear for everybody.

A couple of abstracts from this editorial :

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Was the coup bad? Yes.

With democracy being respected by all, evident in the Pheu Thai Party's smooth ascension to power.

Amnesty can be good for reconciliation."

On the one hand, we have a controversial land deal.

On the other hand we have a military coup, 5 years of political and economical troubles, democracy betrayed by the people who call themselves "the oldest political party in Thailand.

Yes, amnesty will be good for reconciliation.

And I think it will be more than a fair deal for everybody.

Edited August 21, 2011 by JurgenG

[jonclark]

What that editorial says ?

That we had a military coup, 5 years of almost incessant riots, half of the nation ready to kill the other half for what ?

A controversial land deal ?

Because at the end, if you remove all the obviously politically motivated court actions, at the end without real legal basis, that's all what is left.

A controversial land deal !

JurgenG - Don't you find it odd that whenever a politician has an outstanding court action he or she decries it as being politically motivated. Almost like a get out of jail free card. Strangely this only applies to politicians - not the rest of the population - Why is that??

Perhaps next time i get a traffic ticket - I'll go to court and claim the ticket was politically motivated - What do you think JurgenG ? Do you think I'll get away with it?

No - you're right the judge would laugh me out the court. Why? Ahhh - It's because i'm not a politician, involved in politics, with enemies who are also politicians involved in politics.

If politicians don't like political motivation - GET A NEW JOB JACKASS!!

Taksin needs to grow so balls and fess up. He was convicted under laws which were in place when he was PM.

[jonclark]

Just want to make it clear for everybody.

A couple of abstracts from this editorial :

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Was the coup bad? Yes.

With democracy being respected by all, evident in the Pheu Thai Party's smooth ascension to power.

Amnesty can be good for reconciliation."

On the one hand, we have a controversial land deal.

On the other hand we have a military coup, 5 years of political and economical troubles, democracy betrayed by the people who call themselves "the oldest political party in Thailand.

Yes, amnesty will be good for reconciliation.

And I think it will be more than a fair deal for everybody.

An amnesty would only set a precedent for more troubles ahead. After all if there's been a coup and five years of trouble and that was all swept under the carpet, whats to stop the whole thing happening again ten years down the road? We got away with it once, why not again??

[JurgenG]

Perhaps next time i get a traffic ticket - I'll go to court and claim the ticket was politically motivated - What do you think JurgenG ? Do you think I'll get away with it?

I don't know

I usually do

[JurgenG]

Perhaps next time i get a traffic ticket - I'll go to court and claim the ticket was politically motivated - What do you think JurgenG ? Do you think I'll get away with it?

I don't know

I usually do

Not actually "politically motivated", juts a "big misunderstanding"

[rixalex]

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

OK. Which countries?

On the one hand, we have a controversial land deal.

It wasn't controversial, it was illegal.

In all the years since the conviction was handed down, and in all the times it has been discussed, not once, not ever, have i heard any one of the Thaksin supporters give any reasoning whatsoever as to why he was innocent. Just a whole lot of whining and crying over the "fact" that it wasn't fair.

The only thing that about the case that wasn't fair was that the 2 million baht bribe that Thaksin attempted to give was returned back to him. It should have been used to aid all those people he has screwed over, and then his prison sentence should have been doubled.

[whybother]

Just want to make it clear for everybody.

A couple of abstracts from this editorial :

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Was the coup bad? Yes.

With democracy being respected by all, evident in the Pheu Thai Party's smooth ascension to power.

Amnesty can be good for reconciliation."

On the one hand, we have a controversial land deal.

On the other hand we have a military coup, 5 years of political and economical troubles, democracy betrayed by the people who call themselves "the oldest political party in Thailand.

Yes, amnesty will be good for reconciliation.

And I think it will be more than a fair deal for everybody.

Yep. That's pretty normal. Pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore the rest.

[Thaddeus]

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

OK. Which countries?

On the one hand, we have a controversial land deal.

It wasn't controversial, it was illegal.

Yep, it's only controversial if you disagree with the law as it stood at the time.

[timekeeper]

This should bring out the pros and the cons.

you mean from Pattaya?

[timekeeper]

Perhaps next time i get a traffic ticket - I'll go to court and claim the ticket was politically motivated - What do you think JurgenG ? Do you think I'll get away with it?

I don't know

I usually do

Not actually "politically motivated", juts a "big misunderstanding"

and did you resolve this big misunderstanding with a bribe?

like a politician would...........?

[jonclark]

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Yeah, but in all fairness as each country has its own set of laws, and its judicial interpretation of their own laws, so when a diplomat says such an offense isn't a criminal act in their country, that is probably true as their country has different laws and interpretations thereof to Thailand.

Most of the comments which result in lese ma jest charges in Thailand wouldn't result in charges in the UK. Should all lese ma jest charges be dropped just because they don't fit with UK law? You live in Thailand, you follow Thai Law

Edited August 21, 2011 by jonclark

[animatic]

What that editorial says ?

That we had a military coup, 5 years of almost incessant riots, half of the nation ready to kill the other half for what ?

A controversial land deal ?

Because at the end, if you remove all the obviously politically motivated court actions, at the end without real legal basis, that's all what is left.

A controversial land deal !

Sorry that is just the top surface of the prosecutions rightly lined up for him,

he split the country to stall the OTHER ones, and if it was just signing for the

wifes land deal, he would have fought it in country with every baht.

No this was about his systematic dismantling of the checks and balances

to allow him to do as he pleased. By the time they realized how far it had gone,

the coup became unfortunately neccesary, as seen at that time.

Of course he then fought back for 5 years, and here we are.

But this is a setup for EXACTLY the same fall season we had under Somchai.

[KhunBJ]

Just another cook up of old news, assumptions and rumors from the Nation ... most of the times it seem that the editorials and News in general from the Nation stems from some Democrat trash talk ...

[tonytidbury]

Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

Or,

Just because it's politically motivated, it doesn't mean he's not guilty.

Or, as some would have it,

Just because he's guilty, it doesn't mean it's not politically motivated.

[ginjag]

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Yeah, but in all fairness as each country has its own set of laws, and its judicial interpretation of their own laws, so when a diplomat says such an offense isn't a criminal act in their country, that is probably true as their country has different laws and interpretations thereof to Thailand.

Most of the comments which result in lese ma jest charges in Thailand wouldn't result in charges in the UK. Should all lese ma jest charges be dropped just because they don't fit with UK law? You live in Thailand, you follow Thai Law

JurgenG- I think has just fled the scene

[tlansford]

So the fact is Thaskin was convicted for breaking a law that existed before the Coup

So how can they call it a political ambush on Thaskin

Seems the only real law in Thailand is that if you have money, the law does not apply to you

The Red shirts want true Democracy

Is this not the law of the land by the people for the people

Not for the rich

While a politically motivated conviction is not dependent on when the law for which the person was convicted was passed, in fact, it would be much better if the law already existed, otherwise, it would be perfectly silly to try to convict someone of a law that had been passed after they had been thrown out of power, wouldn't it?

[whybother]

Just another cook up of old news, assumptions and rumors from the Nation ... most of the times it seem that the editorials and News in general from the Nation stems from some Democrat trash talk ...

Trash talk, such as:

Those facts are: Thaksin was prime minister; his spouse bought a piece of state-auctioned land with his consent; the Financial Institutions Development Fund is a state agency; the purchase was prohibited by anti-graft laws, which came into existence even before the coup-makers threw him out of power.

[whybother]

While a politically motivated conviction is not dependent on when the law for which the person was convicted was passed, in fact, it would be much better if the law already existed, otherwise, it would be perfectly silly to try to convict someone of a law that had been passed after they had been thrown out of power, wouldn't it?

That would be perfectly silly.

But that isn't the case in this instance.

[dominique355]

The law which Thaksin broke was actually introduced and implemented by himself. In short, it prohibited members of the government and their family to deal with government agencies.

But apparently Thaksin and his cronies believed that they are above the law, and they still believe it today. (Talking about double standard)

Whether or not some diplomats think in their countries this would hardly be a crime, is totally irrelevant. It's a Thai law, and it was applied to a Thai for what he did in Thailand. He knew the law and the consequences, he was warned but he choose to ignore it. His conviction was legal and just.

If amnesty is granted, then why only to criminal politicians and not to ordinary citizens? Double standard again?

[Paul123456]

It wasn't just an illegal land sale to make him 1 000 000 000 Baht by using his elected position.

This was the one case that everything was clear and he could be convicted on.

But then there was the fact that he held the country ransom to get his money back and avoid jail time. He used terrorism and the siege and destruction of Bangkok to grab power back.

Hmm, I'd love to see reconciliation and a peaceful Thailand - but how? Just by letting the criminals do what they want?

???

[Misterwhisper]

The problem with these amnesties (of which we've had dozens over the past decades, by the way) is that they hand politicians the roam-free-and-do-whatever-you-want card.

They know that eventually there will be yet another amnesty that will whitewash them. How will politicians in this country ever learn that they can NOT do however they please without having to bear the consequences if we have one amnesty after another after another?

[Paul123456]

The problem with these amnesties (of which we've had dozens over the past decades, by the way) is that they hand politicians the roam-free-and-do-whatever-you-want card.

They know that eventually there will be yet another amnesty that will whitewash them. How will politicians in this country ever learn that they can NOT do however they please without having to bear the consequences if we have one amnesty after another after another?

I agree - but in response to my own post: The Thai people have voted for Thaksin, which I suppose is saying, yes we accept his actions and are happy for him to get his money back. They have also stated in polls that they overwhelmingly accept corruption (ie. theft from the poor).

So we can avoid more violence and killings - maybe the answer for Thailand is just to allow politicians to do whatever they want and rule over the people. Maybe Thailand just isn't ready yet to move beyond this. Until a majority of people want a fair and free society, maybe it is just best to accept the injustice???????? I am not happy with that answer either, but ??????

Edited August 21, 2011 by Paul123456

[yumidesign]

Just want to make it clear for everybody.

A couple of abstracts from this editorial :

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Was the coup bad? Yes.

With democracy being respected by all, evident in the Pheu Thai Party's smooth ascension to power.

Amnesty can be good for reconciliation."

On the one hand, we have a controversial land deal.

On the other hand we have a military coup, 5 years of political and economical troubles, democracy betrayed by the people who call themselves "the oldest political party in Thailand.

Yes, amnesty will be good for reconciliation.

And I think it will be more than a fair deal for everybody.

so its ok for some mega rich Thai to break the law (at the time), be convicted by a court of the country and not abide by the courts decision, because of something unrelated that happened latter. Its just plain wrong and makes a laughing stock of Thai justice system, which i admit in most cases is a joke

[animatic]

The land has just been sold, in tighter financial times,

for more than double what she would have been paid.

It was obvious from day one it was a cooked up sweetheart deal for them,

and even the other bidders were TRT friends/cronies who

WAY WAY underbid, so her ridiculous low bid could carry the day.

The spin on this story has been long and hard boiled, in the best propaganda tradition, but has NOT in away changed the FACTS or the VERDICT, which were all made quite public.

So why the need for charter change for one man?

Well two things, Racha land deal was only one of many, and if he is in jail for that one, two things happen:

A ) he can't avoid going to court dates on the OTHER charges

and those cases start up again,unless voided by an amnesty

taylor made for him calling ANY charges against him political,

and not fact based.

B ) do time and you can't be MP, and so not PM again.

So what if 'the WILL to prosecute' him has some political context, if the facts don't fit they can't convict, if they could NOT convict, then there was no need to stall by leaving the country for years to avoid prosecutions, till he could buy back a government, YET AGAIN.

The sense of "Political Prosecution" as used to sway people against his cases, implies there are no facts to use and that it is only kangaroo courts taking him down, that's the legend they want believed. But the truth is, he was very bad at hiding his paper trails and there are enough trails of documents to end his days in jail if left to be prosecuted.

Edited August 21, 2011 by animatic

[OzMick]

"Some foreign diplomats have mentioned that such an offence is hardly a criminal act in other countries. That may be true.

Yeah, but in all fairness as each country has its own set of laws, and its judicial interpretation of their own laws, so when a diplomat says such an offense isn't a criminal act in their country, that is probably true as their country has different laws and interpretations thereof to Thailand.

Most of the comments which result in lese ma jest charges in Thailand wouldn't result in charges in the UK. Should all lese ma jest charges be dropped just because they don't fit with UK law? You live in Thailand, you follow Thai Law

Seeming you brought it up, IMHO the PM of the UK, Australia, Canada, et al would have been convicted if a similar deal was done in their respective countries. So which foreign diplomats, and which countries?