Charter Change Part Of Plan To Whitewash Thaksin

[TAWP]

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.

And ofcourse you can make explain how it was a political trial that indeed not relate to existing laws.

[Crushdepth]

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.

Do you think the guy is innocent? Personally I think he's dam_n lucky he only got charged for that one thing. On balance, I would say his political influence helped him avoid more charges than he copped.

[anterian]

Thaksin was indeed convicted of breaking a pre existing law, but only because the court had first decided that the Financial Institutions Development Fund was a state agency. Up till that time it had been what might be described as a QUANGO, if such a concept exists in Thailand.

As has been pointed out, he was convicted under a law he himself had introduced and the anti Thaksin brigade portray him as cunning, corrupt and devious, could he then have been so stupid as to buy state land then?

No he was convicted because they changed (or perhaps clarified), the status of the Financial Institutions Development Fund. This was the politically motivated act, made abundantly clear by the sale to his wife being upheld and her not being prosecuted.

[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 !

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.

You are quite correct that Thaksin had the right of appeal of the conviction for 30 days, but had no right of appeal of the sentence. I did not mean to infer that he had no right of appeal, although an appeal would have been futile-- what would the appeal say " Excuse me Supreme Court, but your 5 to 4 ruling ignores your own previous ruling that the FIDF is independent of the central administration, and is not under the direction or influence ot the Ministry of Finance or the Bank of Thailand.

Yes Thaksin, did not appeal his verdict/sentence nor did his wife, since she was acquitted. She did, however appeal her conviction for tax evasion - an entirely differnet matter. "while the Mrs. appealed her's (sic), he dropped his appeal" -- " remember the facts" -- he never filed an appeal to be dropped and she was acquitted.

All that aside, allowing a fresh appeal would allow Thaksin back into Thailand ( on bail ) under the control of the courts -- better here under some control than roaming the world, at his own pleasure..

Edited August 21, 2011 by tigermonkey

[TAWP]

As has been pointed out, he was convicted under a law he himself had introduced and the anti Thaksin brigade portray him as cunning, corrupt and devious, could he then have been so stupid as to buy state land then?

Yes, since he is arrogant and don't think the laws apply to him.

He introduced the laws to stop others, not to limit himself.

He already got away with being above the law in a clear-cut case in 2001, he didn't expect the laws to be able to touch him later aswell. Which he might be right they would not be, if he had kept a clear grip on the situation and his siblings etc in all the checks and balances positions...luckely he fumbled shortly after the election in 2005 by being too heavy handed on his own MPs, leading to his dissolvement of parliament to force them in line (with the help of the 90 day rule)...and the political mess that followed when he underestimated the oppositions will to play along with his megalomaniac ploys for power.

[gemini81]

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

No, they certainly don't want true democracy. Nor do they know what it is.

That would involve competition, hard work, less handouts, and a responsibility that goes along with freedom.

[atyclb]

This should bring out the pros and the cons.

you mean from Pattaya?

Excellently witty, thank you.

[Bakseedaa]

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 !

A pre-meditated unlawful and highly illegal land deal.. her land deal had nothing to do with the coup, although Khun Thaksin thought he was untouchable then..and that may have brought about the coup.. now Thaksin and all his merry band of followers think they too are untouchable.. just look at the way the Red Shirts are acting... only in Thailand.... but with this new government acting the way it has started, soon I will be getting 45 bahts to my one dollar .... and that smells of roses to me.. Thailands demise back to a Banana Republic... and us Farangs getting rich..! Rock on Yinluck

[Ricardo]

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

One problem I would have with hammered's as-ever thoughtful post, is that he assumes there will be a full referendum, on the new Constitution, but from the PTP's statements thus far, I am not confident that the people will be asked, as indeed they should about any major re-write.

I hope that I'm wrong and over-cautious on this, but thus far I have only seen Weng saying it will be a referendum, while PM-Yingluck talks only vaguely of 'the will of the public', which I fear she may twist to include a simple vote of MPs in parliament.

This is not a matter of dropping one clause, or adjusting the ratio of constituency-to-proportional MPs, a return to the 1997-Constitution would be a major change IMO, and must be put before the citizens. Even the much-maligned junta-appointed government of former-PM Sorayud accepted this point fully, to their credit.

I would also disagree with his view, that Thaksin's opponents would stand no chance, or winning any vote on the issue. We simply don't know how many of the 48.4% of people who did vote PTP, out of the 75% who bothered to vote in the election last month, did so in support of the former-PM.

Undoubtedly many did, but it is reasonable to suppose that many more were influenced by the other election-promises made by PTP, which the new coalition-government now appear (in these admittedly-early days) to be backing-away from, that retreat itself may also influence any straight & clear vote, if they're offered one.

[mca]

I feel this is one of the more ludicrous plans of the current government to bring Thaksin back.

Whitewash Thaksin? He's Sino-Thai. Isn't he white enough already?

Far better to creosote him and sneak him across the border at Nong Khai or the like where he'll blend in with the natives a bit better.

[rametindallas]

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 !

5 years of almost incessant riots, half of the nation ready to kill the other half for what ?

For the reason that Dr. T was bankfolling the anti government movement.

[rametindallas]

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

Since when have the "public voted with full knowledge"?

[rametindallas]

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!!!

In your last post you seemed quite knowledgeable of Thai law so I think you are trolling

[rametindallas]

I did not mean to infer that he had no right of appeal, although an appeal would have been futile

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.

You are quite correct that Thaksin had the right of appeal of the conviction for 30 days, but had no right of appeal of the sentence. I did not mean to infer that he had no right of appeal, although an appeal would have been futile-- what would the appeal say " Excuse me Supreme Court, but your 5 to 4 ruling ignores your own previous ruling that the FIDF is independent of the central administration, and is not under the direction or influence ot the Ministry of Finance or the Bank of Thailand.

Yes Thaksin, did not appeal his verdict/sentence nor did his wife, since she was acquitted. She did, however appeal her conviction for tax evasion - an entirely differnet matter. "while the Mrs. appealed her's (sic), he dropped his appeal" -- " remember the facts" -- he never filed an appeal to be dropped and she was acquitted.

All that aside, allowing a fresh appeal would allow Thaksin back into Thailand ( on bail ) under the control of the courts -- better here under some control than roaming the world, at his own pleasure..

so, using your logic, it would have been futile to appeal within the 30 day window the law allows but make him above the law and let him appeal now. I'm sorry, but I cannot follow that logic; what is different now?

[Colin Yai]

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.

More sentimental hogwash about terrorist Mandala, he was offered his freedom in 1985 by PW Botha if he renounced violence which he flatly refused to do ,and languished another 5 years till his release by FW De Klerk in 1990 ,the noble peace prize rings hollow when people like Mandala and Yasser Arafat received it,and In my view somewhat of a sick joke ! Edited August 22, 2011 by Colin Yai

[hyperdimension]

but with this new government acting the way it has started, soon I will be getting 45 bahts to my one dollar .... and that smells of roses to me.. Thailands demise back to a Banana Republic... and us Farangs getting rich..! Rock on Yinluck

Any improvement in the exchange rate for farangs would be offset by higher living costs due to inflation caused by the wage hikes.

[Colin Yai]

but with this new government acting the way it has started, soon I will be getting 45 bahts to my one dollar .... and that smells of roses to me.. Thailands demise back to a Banana Republic... and us Farangs getting rich..! Rock on Yinluck

Any improvement in the exchange rate for farangs would be offset by higher living costs due to inflation caused by the wage hikes.

Caused by the wage hike's??, so far all we have seen is empty promises, mind you I do agree with your summing up of the situation, but lets not count our chickens just yet eh.

[TAWP]

Probably coincidence, but last week the ham and some other meat-products in our local Tesco store when up with over 50% in price. Nuts.

[louse1953]

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 !

A pre-meditated unlawful and highly illegal land deal.. her land deal had nothing to do with the coup, although Khun Thaksin thought he was untouchable then..and that may have brought about the coup.. now Thaksin and all his merry band of followers think they too are untouchable.. just look at the way the Red Shirts are acting... only in Thailand.... but with this new government acting the way it has started, soon I will be getting 45 bahts to my one dollar .... and that smells of roses to me.. Thailands demise back to a Banana Republic... and us Farangs getting rich..! Rock on Yinluck

Agreed,I'm hanging on to my Oz $.Do you rekon Thaksin has got his money in thai baht?Every country heavily taxes oil products,but Thailand reduces tax,who is right.Good for a short time but what about the future.Watch those tankers heading over the borders.