Charter Change Part Of Plan To Whitewash Thaksin

[rixalex]

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?

How many times do we have do go round in circles on this? Every time you repeat this mistruth/lie about the law being applied retroactively, it is refuted and shown to you that this was not the case, but back you come with the same mistruth/lie once again. Has it really been implanted that deeply in your mind?

[Farang0tang]

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.

Referring to point above,

I am wondering can anybody confirm that is definately laid down in Thai Law?

If so, then surely even if the guilty person doesnt spend even 1 nano-second in jail, its the conviction on record that should be the determining factor?

Amnesty may happen - but conviction remains on record. Prevents person taking MP/PM post.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Farang0tang

[OzMick]

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?

The motivation for pressing charges is irrelevant - what is judged by the court is whether an offense has been committed under existing law at the time of the offense.

Your post is an obfuscation of the facts - perfectly silly!

[OzMick]

Does anybody know of ANY country where serving pollies can buy govt assets at bargain basement prices?

[tigermonkey]

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.

So repeal/correct Section 309 so that the law is restored to its full condition at the time of the land deal -- this will allow the filing of an appeal of the conviction - Thaksin can return under bail conditions, which will more tightly control his activities than at present.

The land deal and other charges can be fought out in court in the fullness of time - we can all get on with life !

[cougar52]

Was the guilty verdict based on laws that were already there even before the coup and delivered by the normal court system?

Could someone please tell me exactly what that law is. What is he guilty of, the law required him to sign to allow his wife register the land.

Edited August 21, 2011 by cougar52

[cougar52]

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.

THIS IS NOT TRUE

it was confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. This is supported by the Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

[monkfish]

Thaksin co signed the Land Title deeds as spouse of the buyer.

This is a legal requirement for all Thai's buying land. i.e. spouse always has to sing.

He did not sign any document authorising his wife to buy land.

The OP also forgot to mention the Supreme Court overturnen a previous Supreme Court ruling to get the conviction.

This is a very important as all Supreme Court rulings become LAW.

In end effect they changed the law.

[OzMick]

Was the guilty verdict based on laws that were already there even before the coup and delivered by the normal court system?

Could someone please tell me exactly what that law is. What is he guilty of, the law required him to sign to allow his wife register the land.

Yes, and yes - the government at the time of trial was PPP (a Thaksin proxy)

Thailand and most other countries have laws banning the purchase of government assets by sitting politicians and/or their families and/or family companies. This not only stops corruption, it stops the perception of corruption. Thaksin agreed to abide by the ruling of the court until his lawyer was caught entering the courthouse with 2 million baht in a pastry box. He Then sought to have his passport returned to attend the Olympics, and hasn't been seen in Thailand since. Convicted and sentenced to 2 years.

Straight forward corruption with little or no attempt to hide it because he thought he was above the law. The only defence offered by his sycophants is politically motivated charges" which is both wrong and irrelevant.

[ramrod711]

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 !

i never cease to be amazed by people condoning actions by thai politicians that they would scream bloody murder about in their own countries. start a riot in britain, hang the bastards! burn half of bangkok down, it's all about democracy. months of hourly updates on bbc regarding crooked british politicians abusing their expense accounts, thaksin abuses power by buying land that was clearly illegal for him to purchase, give him a break. what about the previous thai politicians that were convicted of being unusually rich? he isn't the first, that means that others must have been persecuted as well.

[Pi Sek]

Was the guilty verdict based on laws that were already there even before the coup and delivered by the normal court system?

Could someone please tell me exactly what that law is. What is he guilty of, the law required him to sign to allow his wife register the land.

Yes, and yes - the government at the time of trial was PPP (a Thaksin proxy)

Thailand and most other countries have laws banning the purchase of government assets by sitting politicians and/or their families and/or family companies. This not only stops corruption, it stops the perception of corruption. Thaksin agreed to abide by the ruling of the court until his lawyer was caught entering the courthouse with 2 million baht in a pastry box. He Then sought to have his passport returned to attend the Olympics, and hasn't been seen in Thailand since. Convicted and sentenced to 2 years.

Straight forward corruption with little or no attempt to hide it because he thought he was above the law. The only defence offered by his sycophants is politically motivated charges" which is both wrong and irrelevant.

...but don't let the facts get in the way of the truth.

Also important to note are the other 8 charges. Of course, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law (as he has been already in the land case, with a very comprehensive 6-hour reading of the verdict to make sure that any claims of the judiciary's perceived bias were unfounded); but I suspect that, if the rule of (Thai!) Law is to be allowed to run its course (you know, the Law to which Thaksin is supposed to be bound), he might get a heavier total sentence than 2 years.

[hammered]

All these arguements can be made when the charter ammendment comes for the public vote. Then the public can vote for either 1997 or 2007 in full knowledge of what it will mean as well as the other considerations. Then any ammendments can also be put to the public.

If the charter is changed, it also doesnt mean new charges cant be brought against Thaksin if the old ones go do down because of charter change.

Then there is the general amnesty plan. I would think something that controversial should also go to the people as part of a reconcilliation plan.

And a reconcilliation plan where the people dont decide wont work and neither will one that doesnt involve addressing the Thaksin issue.

One problem that Thaksin enemies have is that they have no confidence in being able to win any vote on any issue. Basically the Abhisit "let the people decide" election was a plan for reconcilliation and amnesty without Thaksin to be overseen by Abhisit. They got slaughtered on it. It isnt an acceptable option unless the people of the country change their feelings. And will the Thaksin enemies be willing to smash any remaining support for court decisions by any more rounds of what people across the poltical divide se as overtly political decisions. That is avery dangerous route to go. The best option is to put charter change and amnesty and reconcilliation plans to the people. That though will result in a more Thaksin sided outcome than his enemies want. However, in the final analysis in a democracy the will of the people is paramount as every other facet of democracy is dependent and pressaged on the people supporting and believing in them, so in the final analysis it is the people who will decide

[cougar52]

Please explain What law was broken and what ( does the government at the time of trial was PPP (a Thaksin proxy)) have to do with my question....SECOND REQUEST!!!

Edited August 21, 2011 by cougar52

[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.

So repeal/correct Section 309 so that the law is restored to its full condition at the time of the land deal -- this will allow the filing of an appeal of the conviction - Thaksin can return under bail conditions, which will more tightly control his activities than at present.

The land deal and other charges can be fought out in court in the fullness of time - we can all get on with life !

Thaksin DID have right of appeal

and he did NOT file an appeal, at his own decision, during the allotted time.

Instead he jumped bail,

and while the Mrs appealed her's, he dropped his appeal,

which was still possible with him on the run.

Come on guys, try and remember the facts. They are all public record, not to be confused with 'the legend of the facts' some have worked so hard to make appear the truth.

Edited August 21, 2011 by animatic

[hammered]

Thaksin co signed the Land Title deeds as spouse of the buyer.

This is a legal requirement for all Thai's buying land. i.e. spouse always has to sing.

He did not sign any document authorising his wife to buy land.

The OP also forgot to mention the Supreme Court overturnen a previous Supreme Court ruling to get the conviction.

This is a very important as all Supreme Court rulings become LAW.

In end effect they changed the law.

There is no precedent in Thai law.

They can decide a case one way one day and an exact same one the other the next. In theory each case is tried on its individual merits and unaffected by any previous decision. That is the technical stuff. It is (Roman) code based law and not English Common Law based

[djlest]

Well if i was an innocent Mr Taksin - i certainly wouldn't have run away...

And if i was a Courageous leader that cared for my people - i certainly wouldn't run away to fund and orchestrate a red blood war to seek revenge on those that dared to uncover my crimes...

But if i was a hero standing up for democracy and freedom and all that love - money would not be one of my main objectives in life... neither would manipulating the poor... but ofcourse - im none of the above

[changraider]

Does anybody know of ANY country where serving pollies can buy govt assets at bargain basement prices?

Hi Mick, I've been thinking about this one too :-) The thing that comes to mind is the great innovation of Margaret Thatcher to sell off state assets - "privatisation" - which has become a standard operating procedure in many governments now. Of course these assets were too large and valuable to be sold to private individuals, but the Boards of Directors and principal shareholders frequently included the nearest and dearest of Mrs T.

[whybother]

Please explain What law was broken and what ( does the government at the time of trial was PPP (a Thaksin proxy)) have to do with my question....SECOND REQUEST!!!

Article 122 of the 1999 Constitutional Supplementary Act on counter-corruption, which says officials are not allowed to take part in any business deal made with an agency under their supervision.

[rubl]

Please explain What law was broken and what ( does the government at the time of trial was PPP (a Thaksin proxy)) have to do with my question....SECOND REQUEST!!!

Please pardon me, but since you were able to dig up Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 regading the FIDF, you should be able to search and find the answer to your rather intriguingly formulated question.

[rubl]

Well if i was an innocent Mr Taksin - i certainly wouldn't have run away...

And if i was a Courageous leader that cared for my people - i certainly wouldn't run away to fund and orchestrate a red blood war to seek revenge on those that dared to uncover my crimes...

But if i was a hero standing up for democracy and freedom and all that love - money would not be one of my main objectives in life... neither would manipulating the poor... but ofcourse - im none of the above

This reminds me that till now no one has come up again with our dear leader k. Thaksin shaking hands with another pillar of freedom and democracy fighter Nelson Mandela. Probably because Mr. Mandela is the real, genuine stuff heroes are made of, not a fake like some who came to visit him for a photo opp.

Edited August 21, 2011 by rubl

[473geo]

One question that is often overlooked in these editorials............are there any influential people who would also benefit from an amnesty?..........this is the key to the success or failure of an amnesty proposal

[Buchholz]

Does anybody know of ANY country where serving pollies can buy govt assets at bargain basement prices?

Zimbabwe

[rubl]

One question that is often overlooked in these editorials............are there any influential people who would also benefit from an amnesty?..........this is the key to the success or failure of an amnesty proposal

A handfull of yellow shirts possibly, dozens of UDD leaders, many banned politicians (including 111 from TRT and a few more from PPP and BJT). Or in others words, normal people like you and me

To be serious, the amnesty plan which has never been a priority, with k. Chalerm in charge, is like the Pheu Thai policies. Once in government still to be formulated, detailed and checked on feasability, etc., etc.

Edited August 21, 2011 by rubl

[changraider]

Well if i was an innocent Mr Taksin - i certainly wouldn't have run away...

And if i was a Courageous leader that cared for my people - i certainly wouldn't run away to fund and orchestrate a red blood war to seek revenge on those that dared to uncover my crimes...

But if i was a hero standing up for democracy and freedom and all that love - money would not be one of my main objectives in life... neither would manipulating the poor... but ofcourse - im none of the above

This reminds me that till now no one has come up again with our dear leader k. Thaksin shaking hands with another pillar of freedom and democracy fighter Nelson Mandela. Probably because Mr. Mandela is the real, genuine stuff heroes are made of, not a fake like some who came to visit him for a photo opp.

Thaksin presided over what is possibly the strongest period of economic growth in Thai history. Mandela presided over the economic and social destruction of what was Africa's potentially greatest nation (no I'm not referring to apartheid so please dont bother flaming.)

[Lite Beer]

ABAC Poll: People prefer Thaksin to remain uninvolved with Yingluck’s gov

BANGKOK, 21 August 2011 (NNT)- ABAC Poll revealed that the majority of the 2193 correspondents in 17 different provinces preferred that no provisions in the Constitution should be amended as part of the national reconciliation policy. More than 52% stressed that violence should not be a result from amending the Constitution for reconciliation

The majority of the respondents feel that amending the Constitution should not be the sole purpose for benefiting certain particular groups. Furthermore, more than 70% felt that fixing the Constitution was an on-going, sensitive issue and needed not to be dealt with expeditiously. Furthermore, a majority of them understand that conflict would be inevitable and is prepared for any dispute.

In addition, almost 80% needs the government to hastily act upon solving high living costs. More than 65% agreed to excluding Thaksin Shinawatra’s roll and influence from Yingluck Shinawatra’s new government and that the country should be independent from any benefactor.

-- NNT 2011-08-21

[Crushdepth]

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 !

Do you deny that he broke the law? The facts are very simple. How then, was the court decision 'politically motivated'?

[rubl]

Thaksin presided over what is possibly the strongest period of economic growth in Thai history.

K. Thaksin was PM in Thailand when it showed a period of very strong economical growth. He was PM, so he takes the credit. Most countries saw similar spectacular growth in the same period, rebound after the 1997/1998 downturn. Just like the last two years which still saw amazing growth despite the global financial crisis still not completely gone and some 'unrest'. K. Abhisit was PM then, he takes the credit.

Sorry totally off topic.

Back on topic 'Charter change part of plan to whitewash Thaksin'. During k. Thaksin's tenure of PM the Thai economy was booming, partially because of Thaksinomics which fitted well within the global recovery rate. K. Thaksin gave freely and equally took freely despite being (amply) rich enough not to be corrupt, despite being prone to make honest mistakes.

Edited August 21, 2011 by rubl

[cougar52]

Please explain What law was broken and what ( does the government at the time of trial was PPP (a Thaksin proxy)) have to do with my question....SECOND REQUEST!!!

Please pardon me, but since you were able to dig up Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 regading the FIDF, you should be able to search and find the answer to your rather intriguingly formulated question.

Rubi, you are correct I can find my own answer, However, the request was to someone on this forum that could answer it.

I have the answer and in my mind his conviction and sentence was POLITICAL. I do not defend him on his other trials to come if they ever do, but for what he WAS tried and convicted was Very Political, and he should have a new trial.

[TAWP]

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?

How many times do we have do go round in circles on this? Every time you repeat this mistruth/lie about the law being applied retroactively, it is refuted and shown to you that this was not the case, but back you come with the same mistruth/lie once again. Has it really been implanted that deeply in your mind?

Want to be really scared? Ask him how the idea was...inserted.

[rixalex]

I have the answer and in my mind his conviction and sentence was POLITICAL.

And that's all it is. In your mind.

I do not defend him on his other trials to come if they ever do,

Doubt they ever will, but if they do, have a hunch you will.