Thaksin Pardon Panel Has 3 Questions

[rametindallas]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

I don't agree. It's a very straightforward issue: He has a conviction, he did not appeal. Even if you believe the sentence is "unjust", court decisions sometimes go the wrong way against ordinary people and they just have to live with it. If you throw out the law for the benefit of a politician, you have to accept that others may discard the law when selecting methods to oppose it.

Thailand's has all the institutions and legal mechanisms required for a functional democracy. The reason it does not work is because the law is not applied. Making (another) exception to the law for the personal benefit of a corrupt politician is a step backwards and will perpetuate the situation, which is a mess.

'think it was unfair'...

The man broke a serious law, he deliberately broke a serious law, he (and his wife) knew very well that they were breaking a serious law, his advisers and the officials of the department concerned all knew very well that he, and themselves by implications were breaking a serious law.

The law that he broke had nothing to do whatever with a coup or any partisan political situations, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the 'samak cookng show' episode.

He broke a serious law - end of story.

Now are the paymasters lovers and leeches going to accept that? No, because they don't want to accept it, nothing more nothing less. They will continue to say 'it was unfair' forever no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

The opinion of Thai people regarding the seriousness of the breach of law may differ from yours....especially the higher you go......

So, in your opinion, does Thailand have 'rule of law' or rule of 'popular opinion'?

[elgato]

Let's face it, he's coming back. Give him a pardon now so we can blather on about what a great job he's doing as the new PM.

[Ricardo]

I say let Thaksin come back to Thailand, then start serving his sentence and then "maybe" he can get a pardon. Otherwise, let him live outside Thailand the rest of his life.

Which states concisely the situation for the past few years. The problem being, once he has returned to serve his current time, how does he continue to stall all the other cases waiting-in-line, for his presence in court ?

Let's face it, he's coming back. Give him a pardon now so we can blather on about what a great job he's doing as the new PM.

Thanks for that, makes me feel quite nostalgic, for the good-old-days of 2001-2006 !

[Crushdepth]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

I don't agree. It's a very straightforward issue: He has a conviction, he did not appeal. Even if you believe the sentence is "unjust", court decisions sometimes go the wrong way against ordinary people and they just have to live with it. If you throw out the law for the benefit of a politician, you have to accept that others may discard the law when selecting methods to oppose it.

Thailand's has all the institutions and legal mechanisms required for a functional democracy. The reason it does not work is because the law is not applied. Making (another) exception to the law for the personal benefit of a corrupt politician is a step backwards and will perpetuate the situation, which is a mess.

People are governed and judged under a form of social contract where they allow themselves to be governed and judged by systems they see as fair and benefitting them and society. If conflict arises between any of these things and the people it is the things that need to change and not the people. That is quite simple democratic theory. Or put simply if the people lose faith in any of the branches: executive, legislature, judiciary then it needs to reform. I am not making a judgement call here but pointing out the relationship between the governed and and judged and those who govern and judge. What happens in Thailand is up to the people in final analysis as governmental and judicial bodies are there to serve the people in the people's interest. It is pointless you or I stating that the mechanisms are fine and enough. It is not up to us.

I think you want 'mobocracy' we change the social contract whenever to suit our current needs.

Who can argue with The Mob?

[Ronaldo69]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

Basically I agree with your observations regarding Abhisit's current level of favour/credit generally.

And in personal discussion with some avid Thaksin supporters openly been told "We know thaksin was/is corrupt.......but they are ALL corrupt".

[Valentine]

I say let Thaksin come back to Thailand, then start serving his sentence and then "maybe" he can get a pardon. Otherwise, let him live outside Thailand the rest of his life.

Which states concisely the situation for the past few years. The problem being, once he has returned to serve his current time, how does he continue to stall all the other cases waiting-in-line, for his presence in court ?

Let's face it, he's coming back. Give him a pardon now so we can blather on about what a great job he's doing as the new PM.

Thanks for that, makes me feel quite nostalgic, for the good-old-days of 2001-2006 !

The amnesty can be worded to absolve any supposed crimes in the past.

[473geo]

So, in your opinion, does Thailand have 'rule of law' or rule of 'popular opinion'?

I believe that the opinion of how serious the breach of law is considered may have a bearing on the actions of the people with real influence regarding a possible pardon.........

I am also of the opinion that the electorate, government, legal advisers, Tvisa posters etc are not the people in the position to influence the final decision.....

[charmonman]

those that despise are probably less in number than those who despise Abhisit at this point in time.

Just to pick you up on one point in isolation, i believe you are completely wrong on this statement above. It's clear, and not only from this post, that you feel Abhisit has been completely poisoned in the minds of much of the electorate, due to what happened in Bangkok last year. I have to say, i just don't see that. General public reaction that i am familiar with, and this even from some with mild red sympathies, is that the reds largely got, sadly, what was coming to them. Over weeks and weeks of taunting towards the military, and with Bangkok at a stand still, with no end in sight, some "flexing of muscle" was absolutely inevitable, just as it would have been had the airport stand-off dragged on weeks and weeks. The military didn't rush in guns blazing after a couple of days. It came after weeks and weeks, for which there was not a day that went by without the government pleading people to go home because it was not safe.

So, besides the red shirts themselves, i truly believe the rest of the nation accepts that the action that Abhisit and the military took was pretty unavoidable, and that the red shirts who were injured or worse, killed, have to take a lot of the responsibility for that themselves.

Despising Abhisit? More people despising Abhisit than Thaksin? Nah. The emotion i see invoked more than any, concerning Abhisit, is if anything, indifference. A nice guy who struggled to achieve much. A nice guy who had his hands tied.

You know, I don't think even red shirts would describe Thaksin as being a nice guy. There's the difference.

You appear to have a mish mash of whats right and wrong and at what point does the army justify using excessive force. Closing the airport for a 10 day concert amounts to terrorism and should have been dealt with in the first 2 hours but not likely as army and pad have the same puppet master. Abhisit is the most despised figure in Thai politics, not as a human being but as the leader of a government who condoned, or gave instruction to, or lost control of its armed forces during the killing of 91? of its own nationals. Nobody informed him that the buck stops with him regardless of who pulled the trigger. If Thaksin gets his royal pardon Mr Abhisit better watch out because now the head of the DSI is firmly onside and its a fair call to say that Abhisit and the little fat fellow will have their roles in last years events fully explained because Thaksin does not need to trade.

How is the closure of the airport "terrorism"? I was in Thailand for the whole thing and I was not "terrorized", just a little concerned about whether I would be able to get my flight back to Canada in time. It was a stupid, harmful, and probably criminal act, but hardly "terrorism".

On the other hand, firing grenade launchers, invading hospitals, and setting buildings on fire does "terrorize" people and therefore such acts probably justify the use of the term "terrorism".

There are many who despise Thaksin, in part due to the number of people killed by the state during his time in charge; far more than were killed by the state during Abhisit's time, and if the buck stops with whoever is PM at the time, Thaksin has far more to answer for than Abhisit by a long shot.

[JohnAllan]

Perhaps I am missing something in translation. Or perhaps the Thais are.

I believe a pardon is something sought in exchange for remorse; which, in turn, is a function of admission of guilt. Since Thaksin is far from remorseful and, moreover, continues to protest his innocence . . .

[hammered]

The crux of this whole thing is that some think the law was used fairly and properly and should be upheld under any circumstance while some think the law was used unfairly (a substantially bigger group than the first judging by the recent survey discussed in Thai, but not english language media) and thus the conviction should be quashed and of course many dont even care. The problem is how do you either decide it was a fair conviction without causing those who think it was a poltical decision to have no faith in the law or how do you quash the conviction without causing those who think the law is even and fair to think it is undermining law and of course you dont have to worry about those who dont care. This is a very political issue now and politics is never ever about right and wrong or black and white but about accomodations. This is one reason why some people do not want to pass the pardon on. Accomodations need to be made at the political level but to date they cant be.

I don't agree. It's a very straightforward issue: He has a conviction, he did not appeal. Even if you believe the sentence is "unjust", court decisions sometimes go the wrong way against ordinary people and they just have to live with it. If you throw out the law for the benefit of a politician, you have to accept that others may discard the law when selecting methods to oppose it.

Thailand's has all the institutions and legal mechanisms required for a functional democracy. The reason it does not work is because the law is not applied. Making (another) exception to the law for the personal benefit of a corrupt politician is a step backwards and will perpetuate the situation, which is a mess.

He was sentenced by the highest court of law in the Kingdom and to the best of my knowledge they are a higher authority than any (as a famous British TV inquisator once put it) here today and gone tomorrow politician.

Theoretically in a democracy the supreme body of the democratic institutions of judiciary, executive and legislature will be the legislature (certainly in a parliamentary system) as they are the elected body both government and judiciary will be assumed to be at a slightly lower level. This is commonly shown by the power to chose and remove government during a sitting parliament residing with the legislature and the power to ammend, overturn or introduce law

Edited September 12, 2011 by hammered

[hammered]

The issue of whether the correct procedure has been followed is a red herring as all they would need to do is give it the the right person.

Which should make one wonder why, in the intervening 3 years since his conviction, that the legally-mandated requirement that the pardon request be initiated by himself, his spouse, or his offspring has never been done.

If Thaksin wants a Royal Pardon, why does he not request it himself (as is the case in most pardon requests)?

Short of that and considering he has no legal spouse now, if his offspring Oak et al want Dad to receive a Royal Pardon, why have they never requested one???

The red herring you speak of was created by the Red Shirts in their lets get a gazillion signatures endeavor.... when not one of those signers meets the requirement that it originates from one of the above authorized requesters.

.

I would guess the reason that Thaksin has not requested the pardon himself is more for appearances and his own ego than anything else - he wants to be seen as coming back because the people want him rather than asking for it himself. If it turns out that he does need to get a sibling involved then I am sure it will not be a problem though the appearance of coming back by popular demand will be lost.

As for not getting an appropriate family member to do this before - do you really think it would have acheived anything without having control of the government before hand???

Thaksin has always claimed he never did anything wrong. I dont want to get into that debate which has covered thousands of TV posts before, but tactically if you claim you have never done anything wrong then it would be a mistake to ask for a pardon. Of course others can ask, but it does beg the intriguing question of why doesnt Thaksin ask them to stop if he feels he has nothing to be pardoned for. Then again Thaksin has always said if the people want something they should get it eg him returning as PM or returning per se

[Crushdepth]

The issue of whether the correct procedure has been followed is a red herring as all they would need to do is give it the the right person.

Which should make one wonder why, in the intervening 3 years since his conviction, that the legally-mandated requirement that the pardon request be initiated by himself, his spouse, or his offspring has never been done.

If Thaksin wants a Royal Pardon, why does he not request it himself (as is the case in most pardon requests)?

Short of that and considering he has no legal spouse now, if his offspring Oak et al want Dad to receive a Royal Pardon, why have they never requested one???

The red herring you speak of was created by the Red Shirts in their lets get a gazillion signatures endeavor.... when not one of those signers meets the requirement that it originates from one of the above authorized requesters.

.

I would guess the reason that Thaksin has not requested the pardon himself is more for appearances and his own ego than anything else - he wants to be seen as coming back because the people want him rather than asking for it himself. If it turns out that he does need to get a sibling involved then I am sure it will not be a problem though the appearance of coming back by popular demand will be lost.

As for not getting an appropriate family member to do this before - do you really think it would have acheived anything without having control of the government before hand???

Thaksin has always claimed he never did anything wrong. I dont want to get into that debate which has covered thousands of TV posts before, but tactically if you claim you have never done anything wrong then it would be a mistake to ask for a pardon. Of course others can ask, but it does beg the intriguing question of why doesnt Thaksin ask them to stop if he feels he has nothing to be pardoned for. Then again Thaksin has always said if the people want something they should get it eg him returning as PM or returning per se

Let's say he gets a pardon for his existing conviction.

What happens to the other charges against him, for which he has not yet stood trial? Do they get sanitised at the same time, or would he need to go ask for additional pardons later on?

[Buchholz]

The issue of whether the correct procedure has been followed is a red herring as all they would need to do is give it the the right person.

Which should make one wonder why, in the intervening 3 years since his conviction, that the legally-mandated requirement that the pardon request be initiated by himself, his spouse, or his offspring has never been done.

If Thaksin wants a Royal Pardon, why does he not request it himself (as is the case in most pardon requests)?

Short of that and considering he has no legal spouse now, if his offspring Oak et al want Dad to receive a Royal Pardon, why have they never requested one???

The red herring you speak of was created by the Red Shirts in their lets get a gazillion signatures endeavor.... when not one of those signers meets the requirement that it originates from one of the above authorized requesters.

.

I would guess the reason that Thaksin has not requested the pardon himself is more for appearances and his own ego than anything else - he wants to be seen as coming back because the people want him rather than asking for it himself. If it turns out that he does need to get a sibling involved then I am sure it will not be a problem though the appearance of coming back by popular demand will be lost.

As for not getting an appropriate family member to do this before - do you really think it would have acheived anything without having control of the government before hand???

Thaksin has always claimed he never did anything wrong. I dont want to get into that debate which has covered thousands of TV posts before, but tactically if you claim you have never done anything wrong then it would be a mistake to ask for a pardon. Of course others can ask, but it does beg the intriguing question of why doesnt Thaksin ask them to stop if he feels he has nothing to be pardoned for. Then again Thaksin has always said if the people want something they should get it eg him returning as PM or returning per se

And with his refusal to admit guilt and subsequently not requesting the Royal Pardon himself (or by allowable requester) he negates the legality of the request from the git go.

More intriguing to me is that his offspring haven't made the request. He's had them do all sorts of his bidding from buying/selling billions in baht in stocks to running his corporations.

.

.

[Buchholz]

Which should make one wonder why, in the intervening 3 years since his conviction, that the legally-mandated requirement that the pardon request be initiated by himself, his spouse, or his offspring has never been done.

If Thaksin wants a Royal Pardon, why does he not request it himself (as is the case in most pardon requests)?

Short of that and considering he has no legal spouse now, if his offspring Oak et al want Dad to receive a Royal Pardon, why have they never requested one???

The red herring you speak of was created by the Red Shirts in their lets get a gazillion signatures endeavor.... when not one of those signers meets the requirement that it originates from one of the above authorized requesters.

I would guess the reason that Thaksin has not requested the pardon himself is more for appearances and his own ego than anything else - he wants to be seen as coming back because the people want him rather than asking for it himself. If it turns out that he does need to get a sibling involved then I am sure it will not be a problem though the appearance of coming back by popular demand will be lost.

As for not getting an appropriate family member to do this before - do you really think it would have acheived anything without having control of the government before hand???

Thaksin has always claimed he never did anything wrong. I dont want to get into that debate which has covered thousands of TV posts before, but tactically if you claim you have never done anything wrong then it would be a mistake to ask for a pardon. Of course others can ask, but it does beg the intriguing question of why doesnt Thaksin ask them to stop if he feels he has nothing to be pardoned for. Then again Thaksin has always said if the people want something they should get it eg him returning as PM or returning per se

Let's say he gets a pardon for his existing conviction.

What happens to the other charges against him, for which he has not yet stood trial? Do they get sanitised at the same time, or would he need to go ask for additional pardons later on?

Probably opt for the other PM Chalerm to lead an amnesty for all those still-pending charges.

Wipes the entire slate clean in one swoop AND avoids the cumbersome individual pardons with varying timelines.

.

[animatic]

1 How big is the pastry box?

2. When does it get here?

3 What do you need done?

Different day, same old 'merde de toro'.

Edited September 12, 2011 by animatic

[hammered]

Let's say he gets a pardon for his existing conviction.

What happens to the other charges against him, for which he has not yet stood trial? Do they get sanitised at the same time, or would he need to go ask for additional pardons later on?

Most expect a legislative amnesty or a techincal constitutional reset to disappear the "crimes of everyone". Likely a few Dems such as Suthep and possibly Abhisit will be facing charges at some point. However, for now there is only one charge preventing Thaksin from returning a free man. This is all about political tactics and strategy in a high level power game right now