Pardon For Thaksin: Thai Govt Takes Dangerous Path

[whybother]

he was not convicted by the supreme court he was convicted by the court for holders of political positions ( or something close to that)

whether the two previous rulings were or were not presented at court i have no idea, however, the point is that the lower court ignored the higher courts rulings.

This is something judges should have been aware of! Perhaps is had something to do with the majority of the judges being installed by the military & with no right of appeal you could actually call it a kangaroo court!

The whole point of this for me is that if you are going to get someone you should do it fairly and in a way that is applicable to all!

if you say to your wife you can't agree to her spending her own money on some land then you would be out the door lol

He was convicted by Supreme court's "Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions".

Surely you can say "I can't sign that because I will be breaking the law".

[rubl]

OMR the military may well be to divided to even do anything. They struggled to pull off May last year and the reds are a lot more powerful since that

Edited to add: i think we are close to what we talked about a while ago involving the long march if anyone wants to try it

The army struggled to pull off the clean-up May 2010? Against 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'? And now the reds are more powerful?

Time to watch out for grenade attacks on non-reds ?

rubl, show me one regular on this forum who would argue that every red shirt at the protest in 2010 was a peaceful protester...show me just one...

or else stop with the 'peaceful protesters' baloney, please

One 'regular'? No other conditions, like foreign, male, 60+, sex-pat, etc., etc.? May I include members who just happen to be banned for whatever reason?

Anyway, the 'peaceful protesters' baloney was started by UDD leaders and/or members. A really cool banner to contrast the hate-speeches. Aimed at foreign media only, not for local consumption of course. If you had heard some of the 'cool' speeches made with the 'cool' banner in the background, broadcasted over and over again on PTV, you would really appreciate the subtlety of my curse. Assuming you have a sense of humour, that is

[sparebox2]

OMR the military may well be to divided to even do anything. They struggled to pull off May last year and the reds are a lot more powerful since that

Edited to add: i think we are close to what we talked about a while ago involving the long march if anyone wants to try it

The army struggled to pull off the clean-up May 2010? Against 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'? And now the reds are more powerful?

Time to watch out for grenade attacks on non-reds ?

rubl, show me one regular on this forum who would argue that every red shirt at the protest in 2010 was a peaceful protester...show me just one...

or else stop with the 'peaceful protesters' baloney, please

One 'regular'? No other conditions, like foreign, male, 60+, sex-pat, etc., etc.? May I include members who just happen to be banned for whatever reason?

Anyway, the 'peaceful protesters' baloney was started by UDD leaders and/or members. A really cool banner to contrast the hate-speeches. Aimed at foreign media only, not for local consumption of course. If you had heard some of the 'cool' speeches made with the 'cool' banner in the background, broadcasted over and over again on PTV, you would really appreciate the subtlety of my curse. Assuming you have a sense of humour, that is

The 2006 coup was a peaceful coup too.

So is the airport occupation. A peaceful occupation.

[sparebox2]

he was not convicted by the supreme court he was convicted by the court for holders of political positions ( or something close to that)

whether the two previous rulings were or were not presented at court i have no idea, however, the point is that the lower court ignored the higher courts rulings.

This is something judges should have been aware of! Perhaps is had something to do with the majority of the judges being installed by the military & with no right of appeal you could actually call it a kangaroo court!

The whole point of this for me is that if you are going to get someone you should do it fairly and in a way that is applicable to all!

if you say to your wife you can't agree to her spending her own money on some land then you would be out the door lol

He was convicted by Supreme court's "Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions".

Surely you can say "I can't sign that because I will be breaking the law".

If he is convicted in a Political Court, does that make him a Political Fugitive?

[scorecard]

he was not convicted by the supreme court he was convicted by the court for holders of political positions ( or something close to that)

whether the two previous rulings were or were not presented at court i have no idea, however, the point is that the lower court ignored the higher courts rulings.

This is something judges should have been aware of! Perhaps is had something to do with the majority of the judges being installed by the military & with no right of appeal you could actually call it a kangaroo court!

The whole point of this for me is that if you are going to get someone you should do it fairly and in a way that is applicable to all!

if you say to your wife you can't agree to her spending her own money on some land then you would be out the door lol

He was convicted by Supreme court's "Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions".

Surely you can say "I can't sign that because I will be breaking the law".

If he is convicted in a Political Court, does that make him a Political Fugitive?

The comment about "installed by the junta ...." is off the truth, and is not relevant. He broke a serious law - abuse of power.

A law which has been on the Thai statute books for decades and is there for good reasons (in all countries), to stop unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats from buying (at bargain basement prices) the assets of all Thai people.

The evidence is clear, it was not in any way a 'beat up'. He knew this law existed, his then wife also knew, plus the state officials involved also knew very well that he was prohibited from signing the sale document. He broke the law, clear as a bell. Nothing to do with the junta.

Edited November 19, 2011 by scorecard

[Buchholz]

when you decide to butt out and let others speak for themselves when they're in discussion.... deal?

i'm interested in what rubl has to say, since that's who i was asking... thanks

It's best to accomplish that through a personal message (PM).

If you post on the public forum, any member in the public reading it can and will respond to it.

.

thanks for the advice buchholz

and your clarification of how internet forums' work has completely enlightened me, thanks

You're quite welcome.

Always happy to help new members learn how the system works.

.

[PaulBax]

he was not convicted by the supreme court he was convicted by the court for holders of political positions ( or something close to that)

whether the two previous rulings were or were not presented at court i have no idea, however, the point is that the lower court ignored the higher courts rulings.

This is something judges should have been aware of! Perhaps is had something to do with the majority of the judges being installed by the military & with no right of appeal you could actually call it a kangaroo court!

The whole point of this for me is that if you are going to get someone you should do it fairly and in a way that is applicable to all!

if you say to your wife you can't agree to her spending her own money on some land then you would be out the door lol

He was convicted by Supreme court's "Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions".

Surely you can say "I can't sign that because I will be breaking the law".

If he is convicted in a Political Court, does that make him a Political Fugitive?

The comment about "installed by the junta ...." is off the truth, and is not relevant. He broke a serious law - abuse of power.

A law which has been on the Thai statute books for decades and is there for good reasons (in all countries), to stop unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats from buying (at bargain basement prices) the assets of all Thai people.

The evidence is clear, it was not in any way a 'beat up'. He knew this law existed, his then wife also knew, plus the state officials involved also knew very well that he was prohibited from signing the sale document. He broke the law, clear as a bell. Nothing to do with the junta.

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

[rubl]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

In the case against k. Thaksin the court ruled the FIDF to be a state agency. With the TAMC, a government agency owned 100% by the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) that makes sense.

(The Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) was created in 1997 as a subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand to protect both individual creditors and smaller financial institutions.)

Edited November 19, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

What were the "two previous supreme court rulings"? What were they in relation to?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please stay on-topic and exercise care in posting.

[Buchholz]

he was not convicted by the supreme court he was convicted by the court for holders of political positions ( or something close to that)

He was absolutely convicted by Thailand's Supreme Court:

On 21st October 2008, the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions in the Supreme Court convicted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to a 2 year-jail term

http://www.fpps.or.th/news.php?detail=n1227936464.news

[Mario2008]

1 post deleted for giving incorrect information and critisizing the courts of Thailand.

[PaulBax]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

What were the "two previous supreme court rulings"? What were they in relation to?

The FIDF is an entity set up to solve financial crises in the country many years before Thaksin arrived on the political scene. This office first put this land on public auction in July 2003. There were three development companies that were interested. However, the minimum bid was too high (B870 Mil) and FIDF cancelled the auction.

In November 2003, FIDF again announced sale of this land to the public via its website. Khunying Pajamarn was interested in the land for residential purposes and appointed her attorney submit a bid.

The FIDF appointed two committees to supervise the bidding process, the bid acceptance committee and the price opening committee. There were 4 potential bidders. But before each potential bidder can submit a bid, their qualification must be approved by these committees. One of the potential bidders was disqualified because their attorney who submitted the bid was not properly authorized. Khunying Pajamarn (offered B772 Mil) and two others are found to be qualified. The other two were publicly listed real estate developers, Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

In December 2003, after the opening of the bidding price, the committee held a meeting to approve the sale to the highest bidder and the Land Sale and Purchased Agreement was signed with Khunyin Pajamarn.

Also in December 2003, Thaksin, as a husband, signed the consent form required to effect the registration of the land transfer. As part of the formality of any registration of real estate requiring spousal consent, he used his official identity card. It shows his official title as Prime Minister.

And this is important… Prior to putting down his signature, 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.

Well, if law is law, it would appear that the sale was legally done by public auction, which means anyone can participate. I would think this includes a Prime Minister's wife as well. It would also appear that the whole process was done properly and transparently. In the bidding clauses, the FIDF even reserved the right to not sell to any one, including the highest bidder. The transaction is not an abuse of power by the office of the Prime Minister, nor is it a conflict of interest as supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court's decision.

This case amplifies what I and many Thais already know. Unfortunately, we are doomed to live our lives under sensationalized rumors and highly charged fabrications where our politic is concern. It's unlikely there are efforts on any one's part to really inform the public the truth behind rumor based and politically motivated charges. I would think if there were any intention to corrupt or abuse power, it would have been much simpler and nothing to have someone else purchase the land. The Shinnawatra would not have personally involved themselves. Fact is, Khunying Pajamarn was informed she is qualified to participate and buy the land and Thaksin's office confirmed FIDF is a separate entity and not a part of the central administration. The sale and purchase was done in good faith with consideration paid and in accordance to the law......That is if Law is Law....

Here's section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption Thaksin is found to be in violation of.

Section 100 Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:

(1) being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(2) being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a party to a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(3) being a concessionaire or continuing to hold a concession from the State, State agency, State enterprise or local administration or being a party to contract of a directly or indirectly monopolistic nature made with the State, a Government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local administration, or being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a concessionaire or a contractual party in such manner;

(4) being interested in the capacity as a director, counsel, representative, official or employee in a private business which is under supervision, control or audit of the State agency to which such State official is attached or where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official, provided that the nature of the interest of the private business may be contrary to or inconsistent with public interest or the interest of the Government service or may affect the autonomy in the performance of duties of such State official.

The positions of State officials prohibited from carrying out the activities under paragraph one shall be prescribed and published in the Government Gazette by then N.C.C Commission.

The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

If law is law and given the circumstance surrounding the land deal, I don't see how or where Thaksin abused his power and violated the law.

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

Edited November 19, 2011 by PaulBax

[hyperdimension]

The 2006 coup was a peaceful coup too.

So is the airport occupation. A peaceful occupation.

If there were large banners that had such statements printed on it, then we could start talking about the similarities.

Edited November 19, 2011 by hyperdimension

[whybother]

<snipped "Ink's Input" ... which cougar52 happened to also use in 2009 >

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

And to further quote Ink:

The judges did in fact made the ruling 9-0 ... that FIDF is a state enterprise which is contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1990.

I imagine things change a little in 17 years.

Edited November 19, 2011 by whybother

[lannarebirth]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

What were the "two previous supreme court rulings"? What were they in relation to?

The FIDF is an entity set up to solve financial crises in the country many years before Thaksin arrived on the political scene. This office first put this land on public auction in July 2003. There were three development companies that were interested. However, the minimum bid was too high (B870 Mil) and FIDF cancelled the auction.

In November 2003, FIDF again announced sale of this land to the public via its website. Khunying Pajamarn was interested in the land for residential purposes and appointed her attorney submit a bid.

The FIDF appointed two committees to supervise the bidding process, the bid acceptance committee and the price opening committee. There were 4 potential bidders. But before each potential bidder can submit a bid, their qualification must be approved by these committees. One of the potential bidders was disqualified because their attorney who submitted the bid was not properly authorized. Khunying Pajamarn (offered B772 Mil) and two others are found to be qualified. The other two were publicly listed real estate developers, Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

In December 2003, after the opening of the bidding price, the committee held a meeting to approve the sale to the highest bidder and the Land Sale and Purchased Agreement was signed with Khunyin Pajamarn.

Also in December 2003, Thaksin, as a husband, signed the consent form required to effect the registration of the land transfer. As part of the formality of any registration of real estate requiring spousal consent, he used his official identity card. It shows his official title as Prime Minister.

And this is important… Prior to putting down his signature, 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.

Well, if law is law, it would appear that the sale was legally done by public auction, which means anyone can participate. I would think this includes a Prime Minister's wife as well. It would also appear that the whole process was done properly and transparently. In the bidding clauses, the FIDF even reserved the right to not sell to any one, including the highest bidder. The transaction is not an abuse of power by the office of the Prime Minister, nor is it a conflict of interest as supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court's decision.

This case amplifies what I and many Thais already know. Unfortunately, we are doomed to live our lives under sensationalized rumors and highly charged fabrications where our politic is concern. It's unlikely there are efforts on any one's part to really inform the public the truth behind rumor based and politically motivated charges. I would think if there were any intention to corrupt or abuse power, it would have been much simpler and nothing to have someone else purchase the land. The Shinnawatra would not have personally involved themselves. Fact is, Khunying Pajamarn was informed she is qualified to participate and buy the land and Thaksin's office confirmed FIDF is a separate entity and not a part of the central administration. The sale and purchase was done in good faith with consideration paid and in accordance to the law......That is if Law is Law....

Here's section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption Thaksin is found to be in violation of.

Section 100 Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:

(1) being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(2) being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a party to a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(3) being a concessionaire or continuing to hold a concession from the State, State agency, State enterprise or local administration or being a party to contract of a directly or indirectly monopolistic nature made with the State, a Government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local administration, or being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a concessionaire or a contractual party in such manner;

(4) being interested in the capacity as a director, counsel, representative, official or employee in a private business which is under supervision, control or audit of the State agency to which such State official is attached or where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official, provided that the nature of the interest of the private business may be contrary to or inconsistent with public interest or the interest of the Government service or may affect the autonomy in the performance of duties of such State official.

The positions of State officials prohibited from carrying out the activities under paragraph one shall be prescribed and published in the Government Gazette by then N.C.C Commission.

The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

If law is law and given the circumstance surrounding the land deal, I don't see how or where Thaksin abused his power and violated the law.

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

http://www.bot.or.th/English/FinancialInstitutionsDevelopmentFund/About_FIDF/Pages/History.aspx

[PaulBax]

<snipped "Ink's Input" ... which cougar52 happened to also use in 2009 >

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

And to further quote Ink:

The judges did in fact made the ruling 9-0 ... that FIDF is a state enterprise which is contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1990.

I imagine things change a little in 17 years.

maybe they do but you cant change the law after the event!

[looping]

It's just beyond me how a criminal who flees the country without serving a day in prison, then wages a terrorist style war, dividing the entire country, could possibly be pardoned. It's just too much.

[whybother]

<snipped "Ink's Input" ... which cougar52 happened to also use in 2009 >

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

And to further quote Ink:

The judges did in fact made the ruling 9-0 ... that FIDF is a state enterprise which is contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1990.

I imagine things change a little in 17 years.

maybe they do but you cant change the law after the event!

No laws were changed. After the Asian financial crisis and a new constitution, maybe things changed with the FIDF.

[yoshiwara]

Forum Thaksin apologists should really try to make up their mind whether they want amnesty (he's guilty but should be let off together with thousands of other convicted fraudsters) or he is innocent and the government will seek to change the law. Maybe they are hoping for an amnesty followed by a process of quashing the convictions and subsequent nullification of an amnesty. Either way I have yet to hear a rebuttal of the convictions for money laundering through his family and Thaksin's chauffeur. Maybe a leading (!) academic can be found to do an appropriate snow job. You know, pratting around with the small print. Anyway good luck with proving that money laundering is A OK with the Thai legal code. Sorry? Can't do? Well dodge that and question the convicting body. That's all you have left. And secrecy. And government lies. And supine supporters.

[yoshiwara]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

Try dealing with the evidence on the convictions. Start with money laundering. Off you go.

[looping]

So, if he does return, does that mean that all the remaining cases against him can be reopened? Or will he also be let off those as well? Just a thought.

[Chris Lawrence]

The fact of the matter is that the charges which never seem to be defined in these types of print from the Nation, were ones that were committed by many others on both sides of politics. Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court directed by Mr T's opposing party. Corruption appears endemic in a form that westerners can't tolerate or understand in most parts of Asia. But most parts of Asia had good teachers from Colonial times.

"were committed by many others on both sides of politics" - which other politicians approved their wife's land purchase from a government entity?

"Only 4 out of the 5 charges were proven by a court" - and that's not enough?

"by a court directed by Mr T's opposing party" - It was Mr T's party in power when the court made their decision.

So often we hear this, why don't people seem to remember, it was Thaksin's PPP-led coalition-government in-power, and his relative former-PM Somchai as Prime Minister, in 2008 ? So if the courts are influenced by the government, as is often claimed, why don't they want to remember this ? It's only a few years ago, for heavens sake !

A junta-appointed Assets Examination Committee froze Thaksin's assets and attempted to bring charges against him. The AEC was criticized for being stacked with anti-Thaksin appointees. At one point, AEC Secretary Kaewsan Atibodhi claimed that "evidence and witnesses are useless", when an AEC panel recommended legal action without hearing 300 witnesses or considering 100 additional pieces of evidence.[150] The AEC froze Thaksin's assets

In January 2007, Financial Institutions Development Fund complied with an Assets Examination Committee request to file a charge against Thaksin and his wife over their purchase of four 772 million baht plots of land from the FIDF in 2003. The charge was based on alleged violation of Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which prohibits government officials and their spouses from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authority.

Is this what we are supposed to remember?

The Army had come in and taken control!

The people in power did what they were told to do.

[Chris Lawrence]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

What were the "two previous supreme court rulings"? What were they in relation to?

The FIDF is an entity set up to solve financial crises in the country many years before Thaksin arrived on the political scene. This office first put this land on public auction in July 2003. There were three development companies that were interested. However, the minimum bid was too high (B870 Mil) and FIDF cancelled the auction.

In November 2003, FIDF again announced sale of this land to the public via its website. Khunying Pajamarn was interested in the land for residential purposes and appointed her attorney submit a bid.

The FIDF appointed two committees to supervise the bidding process, the bid acceptance committee and the price opening committee. There were 4 potential bidders. But before each potential bidder can submit a bid, their qualification must be approved by these committees. One of the potential bidders was disqualified because their attorney who submitted the bid was not properly authorized. Khunying Pajamarn (offered B772 Mil) and two others are found to be qualified. The other two were publicly listed real estate developers, Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

In December 2003, after the opening of the bidding price, the committee held a meeting to approve the sale to the highest bidder and the Land Sale and Purchased Agreement was signed with Khunyin Pajamarn.

Also in December 2003, Thaksin, as a husband, signed the consent form required to effect the registration of the land transfer. As part of the formality of any registration of real estate requiring spousal consent, he used his official identity card. It shows his official title as Prime Minister.

And this is important… Prior to putting down his signature, 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.

Well, if law is law, it would appear that the sale was legally done by public auction, which means anyone can participate. I would think this includes a Prime Minister's wife as well. It would also appear that the whole process was done properly and transparently. In the bidding clauses, the FIDF even reserved the right to not sell to any one, including the highest bidder. The transaction is not an abuse of power by the office of the Prime Minister, nor is it a conflict of interest as supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court's decision.

This case amplifies what I and many Thais already know. Unfortunately, we are doomed to live our lives under sensationalized rumors and highly charged fabrications where our politic is concern. It's unlikely there are efforts on any one's part to really inform the public the truth behind rumor based and politically motivated charges. I would think if there were any intention to corrupt or abuse power, it would have been much simpler and nothing to have someone else purchase the land. The Shinnawatra would not have personally involved themselves. Fact is, Khunying Pajamarn was informed she is qualified to participate and buy the land and Thaksin's office confirmed FIDF is a separate entity and not a part of the central administration. The sale and purchase was done in good faith with consideration paid and in accordance to the law......That is if Law is Law....

Here's section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption Thaksin is found to be in violation of.

Section 100 Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:

(1) being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(2) being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a party to a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(3) being a concessionaire or continuing to hold a concession from the State, State agency, State enterprise or local administration or being a party to contract of a directly or indirectly monopolistic nature made with the State, a Government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local administration, or being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a concessionaire or a contractual party in such manner;

(4) being interested in the capacity as a director, counsel, representative, official or employee in a private business which is under supervision, control or audit of the State agency to which such State official is attached or where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official, provided that the nature of the interest of the private business may be contrary to or inconsistent with public interest or the interest of the Government service or may affect the autonomy in the performance of duties of such State official.

The positions of State officials prohibited from carrying out the activities under paragraph one shall be prescribed and published in the Government Gazette by then N.C.C Commission.

The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

If law is law and given the circumstance surrounding the land deal, I don't see how or where Thaksin abused his power and violated the law.

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

Good post Paul. I just get sick of hearing gripes that have very little meaning or are light on content.

I also saw someone mention they had dealings with Thaksin, and because things were not documented the person felt hard done by. I was taught in my first job to have everything documented and signed off, otherwise you don't get paid. If I don't, I am at fault. The other person is not the devil but just following their own business principle. If I agree with what they do its not for me. If I deal with a Government Dept I always act per a contract.

A lot gets said about events that have happened, but the actual and factual history seems to get lost in this need to vent some sort of frustration in a country were many of us were not born.

The easy way to create disharmony on this board is to say something that happened when Mr T was in power.

There's one poster who seems to believe that it was Mr T's mates that went after him after the coup? That's a bit strange.

[yoshiwara]

so with two previous supreme court rulings stating that the agency was independent from Government at the time of his signing a piece of paper allowing his wife to make a purchase after winning a sealed bid by paying over value for a piece of land.

you cannot in your own mind think that this was not a political stitch up! not unless you are as blinded by hatred for Thaksin as those who are willing to circumvent justice.

I would hate that sort of reasoning in any court case i was involved in!

That supreme court rulings can be ignored on a whim!

What were the "two previous supreme court rulings"? What were they in relation to?

The FIDF is an entity set up to solve financial crises in the country many years before Thaksin arrived on the political scene. This office first put this land on public auction in July 2003. There were three development companies that were interested. However, the minimum bid was too high (B870 Mil) and FIDF cancelled the auction.

In November 2003, FIDF again announced sale of this land to the public via its website. Khunying Pajamarn was interested in the land for residential purposes and appointed her attorney submit a bid.

The FIDF appointed two committees to supervise the bidding process, the bid acceptance committee and the price opening committee. There were 4 potential bidders. But before each potential bidder can submit a bid, their qualification must be approved by these committees. One of the potential bidders was disqualified because their attorney who submitted the bid was not properly authorized. Khunying Pajamarn (offered B772 Mil) and two others are found to be qualified. The other two were publicly listed real estate developers, Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

In December 2003, after the opening of the bidding price, the committee held a meeting to approve the sale to the highest bidder and the Land Sale and Purchased Agreement was signed with Khunyin Pajamarn.

Also in December 2003, Thaksin, as a husband, signed the consent form required to effect the registration of the land transfer. As part of the formality of any registration of real estate requiring spousal consent, he used his official identity card. It shows his official title as Prime Minister.

And this is important… Prior to putting down his signature, 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.

Well, if law is law, it would appear that the sale was legally done by public auction, which means anyone can participate. I would think this includes a Prime Minister's wife as well. It would also appear that the whole process was done properly and transparently. In the bidding clauses, the FIDF even reserved the right to not sell to any one, including the highest bidder. The transaction is not an abuse of power by the office of the Prime Minister, nor is it a conflict of interest as supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court's decision.

This case amplifies what I and many Thais already know. Unfortunately, we are doomed to live our lives under sensationalized rumors and highly charged fabrications where our politic is concern. It's unlikely there are efforts on any one's part to really inform the public the truth behind rumor based and politically motivated charges. I would think if there were any intention to corrupt or abuse power, it would have been much simpler and nothing to have someone else purchase the land. The Shinnawatra would not have personally involved themselves. Fact is, Khunying Pajamarn was informed she is qualified to participate and buy the land and Thaksin's office confirmed FIDF is a separate entity and not a part of the central administration. The sale and purchase was done in good faith with consideration paid and in accordance to the law......That is if Law is Law....

Here's section 100 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption Thaksin is found to be in violation of.

Section 100 Any State official shall not carry out the following acts:

(1) being a party to or having interest in a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(2) being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a party to a contract made with a Government agency where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;

(3) being a concessionaire or continuing to hold a concession from the State, State agency, State enterprise or local administration or being a party to contract of a directly or indirectly monopolistic nature made with the State, a Government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local administration, or being a partner or shareholder in a partnership or company which is a concessionaire or a contractual party in such manner;

(4) being interested in the capacity as a director, counsel, representative, official or employee in a private business which is under supervision, control or audit of the State agency to which such State official is attached or where such State official performs duties in the capacity as State official, provided that the nature of the interest of the private business may be contrary to or inconsistent with public interest or the interest of the Government service or may affect the autonomy in the performance of duties of such State official.

The positions of State officials prohibited from carrying out the activities under paragraph one shall be prescribed and published in the Government Gazette by then N.C.C Commission.

The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

If law is law and given the circumstance surrounding the land deal, I don't see how or where Thaksin abused his power and violated the law.

i have to thank ink for his input here and once again state that i am only concerned with this case and no others that there has been no movement on!

Good post Paul. I just get sick of hearing gripes that have very little meaning or are light on content.

I also saw someone mention they had dealings with Thaksin, and because things were not documented the person felt hard done by. I was taught in my first job to have everything documented and signed off, otherwise you don't get paid. If I don't, I am at fault. The other person is not the devil but just following their own business principle. If I agree with what they do its not for me. If I deal with a Government Dept I always act per a contract.

A lot gets said about events that have happened, but the actual and factual history seems to get lost in this need to vent some sort of frustration in a country were many of us were not born.

The easy way to create disharmony on this board is to say something that happened when Mr T was in power.

There's one poster who seems to believe that it was Mr T's mates that went after him after the coup? That's a bit strange.

A rather poor attempt to support a wriggle.

Opinion slipped in as fact: I would think if there were any intention to corrupt or abuse power, it would have been much simpler and nothing to have someone else purchase the land. The Shinnawatra would not have personally involved themselves.

What a load of old cack. The whole point of the Thaksin enterprise has been its overreaching arrogance and badly hidden corruption.

I will say it again.Try to defend the evidence of money laundering through the family and personal chauffeur. Once you examine this stuff then Thaksin's oh so innocently signing off while PM his wife's dealings has all the purity of a stinking fish head. However you wish to wrap it.

[nurofiend]

OMR the military may well be to divided to even do anything. They struggled to pull off May last year and the reds are a lot more powerful since that

Edited to add: i think we are close to what we talked about a while ago involving the long march if anyone wants to try it

The army struggled to pull off the clean-up May 2010? Against 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'? And now the reds are more powerful?

Time to watch out for grenade attacks on non-reds ?

rubl, show me one regular on this forum who would argue that every red shirt at the protest in 2010 was a peaceful protester...show me just one...

or else stop with the 'peaceful protesters' baloney, please

One 'regular'? No other conditions, like foreign, male, 60+, sex-pat, etc., etc.? May I include members who just happen to be banned for whatever reason?

Anyway, the 'peaceful protesters' baloney was started by UDD leaders and/or members. A really cool banner to contrast the hate-speeches. Aimed at foreign media only, not for local consumption of course. If you had heard some of the 'cool' speeches made with the 'cool' banner in the background, broadcasted over and over again on PTV, you would really appreciate the subtlety of my curse. Assuming you have a sense of humour, that is

the definition of what a 'regular' poster means obviously has left you in an intellectual bind.

your 'curse' was neither subtle nor funny... and that's what reassures me that i do have a sense of humour...

and yes, yes rubl... i was completely unaware of anything that could've been deemed as a hateful speech during the protests until you just told me, right there, just now....thanks, you really are on top of it all.

i meant 'peaceful protesters' - 'baloney' - in quotations - because that's how you put it... it s obvious what your view of the red shirt protesters is and was, and the context of your post was what i was referring to...not whether the red shirts used this phrase or not.

just the context in which you put it...context.

but of course i got the usual nit-picky childish word-play responses that is the foundation to a lot of the 'debate' from some people on this forum.

[sbk]

Off topic bickering deleted, drop it nobody wants to read it.

[GazR]

You seem to know very little of this!

if your wife is Thai and buys land you have to sign or she cant buy it!

All bids were sealed and the winning bid overvalued the land at the time. Who says so? The other bidders!

The only screaming was buy people using any excuse they could to get at Thaksin.

The bidding process was found to be legal and above board.

There were two supreme court rulings from before Thaksin's tenure that ruled the relevant agency independent from government!

If the bidding process was legal where is the corruption?

The so called corruption is a man signing a paper giving his wife permission to buy a piece of land, as required by Thai law, where the bidding process was ruled legal!

This is not an attempt to whitewash Thaksin but an example of how the law was circumvented and used retrospectively to get him and applies only to this case.

Whether he is guilty or not of other things is a subjective issue. Most people scream for his head knowing very little about him or his time in government!

To me it seems that the vast majority parked your brains at the airport when you came here! You cannot apply western values to Thailand and this is your biggest mistake.

You think the news papers etc tell the truth when the do not by a long way!

Read the news from outside of Thailand and you may actually get educated! Not as easy as it sounds because anything truthful about this country is usually banned!

The law says that he had to sign for his wife's purchase. The law also found that as PM, they aren't allowed to be involved in buying state property.

What "retrospective" (retroactive?) law was used? He was found guilty using a 1997 law. They found that he was the "de facto" supervisor of the fund that his wife bought the land from.

As PM, he should have kept clear of any transactions related to the government.

let me say it in a way as to make it clear to you!

he was not involved in any way other than to ok his then wife's purchase!

Let me also state that a lower court overturned two decisions by the highest court in the land! namely that the agency was independent from government!

if the same court ruled that the deal was above board then there seems to be a problem!

if that too difficult to understand?

Dear Angry Dude -

First, you need to chill and give the exclamation points a rest.

Second, by your own admission he was involved in his wife's purchase of state-owned real estate.

Third, as PM that was illegal.

Fourth, no exclamation points: it's easy - see?

[slapout]

Thaksin probably started his political career with a similar mindset as to his business ventures. His success in the latter was marked by some very dubious practices when dealing with partners/others.

He got out of the false asset declaration, (Introduction to Thaksin government) and that seemed to characterized his entire tenure in a position of leadership. He had so much initial success at having his way, he became like the habitual conman, he continued, while increasing the stakes, until he got his tit in a wringer. With the reported sums he has/had squirreled away, he was on the way to a world record in ill gotten gains.

It does appear that the rest of the world may not be quite as gullible as many of the Thai people, thus this may be one of his reasons for wanting to return 'home'. The real world businessmen/politicians know that life is not always fair, they suck it up and work within the system, thus they are accepted. This man, his cronies and those of like mindset, blame the rest of the country and those they disagree with for their largely, self inflicted wounds.

Every politician should have to study the political assassinations which have occurred since Roman times and then on a yearly basis just so they never get that invincible attitude/feeling.

[lannarebirth]

Thaksin probably started his political career with a similar mindset as to his business ventures. His success in the latter was marked by some very dubious practices when dealing with partners/others.

He got out of the false asset declaration, (Introduction to Thaksin government) and that seemed to characterized his entire tenure in a position of leadership. He had so much initial success at having his way, he became like the habitual conman, he continued, while increasing the stakes, until he got his tit in a wringer. With the reported sums he has/had squirreled away, he was on the way to a world record in ill gotten gains.

It does appear that the rest of the world may not be quite as gullible as many of the Thai people, thus this may be one of his reasons for wanting to return 'home'. The real world businessmen/politicians know that life is not always fair, they suck it up and work within the system, thus they are accepted. This man, his cronies and those of like mindset, blame the rest of the country and those they disagree with for their largely, self inflicted wounds.

Every politician should have to study the political assassinations which have occurred since Roman times and then on a yearly basis just so they never get that invincible attitude/feeling.

Yes, in politics as in business, he learned it's better if you have a monopoly.