Thaksin Should Receive Criminal Sentence: Green Group Coordinator

[rixalex]

Thaksin proven innocent will be a huge lost of face for a number of very important people. Most important it would mean there was no good reason for the coup. There are stuff money can't buy.

There are stuff money can't buy

You mean like the judges that, during his trial, declined his offer of 2 million baht, to find in his favour?

Legend has it that Thaksin appealed to the very top, and the answer was, your ennemies are too many and too powerful, we can't do anything for you.

That's not legend that has it, that is utterly ridiculous fabricated nonsense that has it.

[maxbentley]

William L. Monson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William L Monson after a court dismissed perjury charges he filed against Thaksin Shinawatra, 11 September 2006

William "Bill" L Monson is an American cable television businessman and the current President of Seattle-based Clearview International and Clearview Wireless and manager of Hawaii-based CTVC. In the 1980s, Monson was involved in the establishment of Video Link, a Thai cable television joint-venture between Clearview and Thaksin Shinawatra's Shinawatra Computer and Communications (today known as Shin Corporation) and International Broadcasting Company (IBC, today known as United Broadcasting Corporation). He engaged in a series of controversial court cases against Thaksin, who by that time had become Prime Minister of Thailand, during the height of the 2005-2006 Thailand political crisis.

In 1989, he was accused of embezzling broadcasting equipment from the joint-venture. A court later acquitted him of the charges.

In 1995, he and four other plaintiffs filed breach of contract charges against Thaksin and 16 other defendants, the plaintiffs demanding 4.13 billion baht in compensation. In 2002, a court threw out the breach of contract charges after finding that the contract between Monson and Thaksin had never taken effect. The court ruled that the contract between Monson and CTVC of Hawaii (USA), on one side, and Thaksin, his wife, and Shinawatra Computer, on the other side, to set up Video Link Co Ltd was void from the beginning; Monson's resignation from Video Link's board of directors voided the contract. The court ordered Monson and the plaintiffs to pay nearly 2 million baht in lawyers' fees for the defendants.^[1]

Monson also filed a lawsuit claiming that Thaksin lied to a civil court during a trial on 22 July 1996 and demanded 6 billion baht in compensation. In September 2006, the court ruled that Monson had failed to bring Thaksin to court within the statute of limitations after filing the lawsuit. Monson defended his case by noting that "We never got to argue or look at the facts of the case. We lost this round based on a legal technicality."^[2] A second charge of perjury against Thaksin was also dismissed.^[3] Both cases are on appeal. Monson has won a civil case over ownership of equipment in two lower courts and are awaiting a Supreme Court decision following resolution of the criminal charges against Thaksin et al.

In addition Monson has filed a complaint with the Special Investigator looking into contracts involving MCOT and IBC.

In February 2007, Thaksin's wife requested that the Bank of Thailand allow her to transfer 400 million baht to the United Kingdom so that she could purchase a house. The central bank originally had no objection to the transfer, until Monson sent a latter to the central bank Governor. He claimed that the money transfer would jeopardise his legal cases against Thaksin, and threatened to hold the bank responsible for any damages he might incur. The Bank of Thailand then agreed to not permit the transfer.^[4][5]

Monson was married to a Thai woman and has two children.^[6]

Press Release

Bangkok - October 30, 2008….11:15 AM

Thaksin’s Associates Face Criminal Complaint

A complaint was filed today with the Thai Supreme Court by Nataporn Toeprayoon, attorney for William L. Monson, a former business partner of Thaksin Shinawatra. The Supreme Court convicted Thaksin of corruption charges last week. Named in the Complaint are Chalerm Yubumrang, the Mass Communications Organization of Thailand (MCOT), its Board Members, International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC), now TrueVision, and others. The charges stem from a Cable TV contract granted illegally by MCOT to IBC in 1989. The concession became the base for Thaksin’s telecommunications empire. Monson has fought a long legal battle with Thaksin and his companies in both Thai and US courts. Monson’s company Clearview International Ltd., pioneered telecommunications in Asia in the 1980’s. Starting in 1982 Clearview worked with MCOT to develop the framework to introduce the technology. In late 1985, when Thaksin was still a policeman, a joint venture between Monson’s companies and Thaksin’s (Shinawatra Computer and IBC) became the first Wireless Cable TV system to go on air in Asia. A government delay caused the partnership to be terminated with Thaksin’s companies selling their interest to Monson’s companies. Thaksin was paid to help clear the government blocks while Monson operated a company delivering CNN to Hotels in Bangkok. In mid 1988 Chalerm, Thaksin’s friend and fellow policeman became the Minister overseeing MCOT and its Chairman of the Board. Later, Thaksin informed Monson that he was going to operate the Cable TV concession himself. When Monson asked about the contracts and payments from Clearview to Thaksin for the business, Thaksin’s response was “This is Thailand”. After Chalerm became the Minister overseeing MCOT he reversed MCOT approval of Clearview for the contract corrupting the process of granting the concession for Clearview’s benefit. Police confiscated Monson’s equipment and filed Criminal Charges against him and his staff. After 7 years the Supreme Court cleared them of all these charges. During this period it was extremely difficult for Monson to travel to and do business in Thailand. Civil courts have ruled that Monson’s company owned the equipment. Thaksin’s IBC received the concession using Monson’s equipment and without bidding. When IBC went public the value of the company in the stock market was 760,000,000 USD giving Thaksin the base for his future telecom empire. Monson claims losses of 4.5 billion US dollars.

On December 1, 2008 the court accepted the case and appointed the Counter Corruption Commission to investigate.

Press Release Bangkok – June 17th, 2009 Thai Supreme Court Rejects Shinawatra Appeal The Thai Supreme Court issued a ruling today in a long running dispute between William Monson and Thaksin Shinawatra, et. al. Lower Courts had ruled that Monson’s company owned telecom equipment required to obtain a license granted by the Mass Communications Organization of Thailand (MCOT) in 1989. The Supreme Court rejected Shinawatra’s appeal. Ownership of the equipment is at the heart of Criminal Charges filed (October 2008) with another division of the Supreme Court handling corrupt public officials. Shinawatra had always claimed that Monson had stolen the equipment and testified in a number of legal suits to that fact. Because of long legal delays, Thaksin was able to avoid perjury charges based on a statute of limitation legal defense, even though Thai Courts have ruled in Monson’s favor over the ownership issues. The Supreme Court division handling corrupt government officials has accepted the Criminal case filed October 20th 2008 and sent it to the Counter Corruption Commission for investigation. A report from the Counter Corruption Commission to the Prosecuting Attorney is expected soon so that the case can be presented to the Supreme Court for action.

Update: The Counter Corruption Commission denied Monson's case on grounds of statute of limitation and lack of evidence. Monson filed an appeal with the Constitutional Supreme Court citing the case decided by the Criminal Supreme Court, in his favor, as evidence and the Constitution stating a 25 year statute of limitations. The appeal to the Court was denied based on "no appeals accepted". Monson has filed both Criminal and Civil suits based on the Criminal Court's decision.

[scorecard]

Serious, legitimate question (not a wind up, just seeking information):

Why did K. Thaksin leave Thailand and refuse to come back in the last few years?

My understanding is that he has the resources to refute any unjust prison sentences and the means to appeal.

If he has done nothing wrong, then why hasn't he come back to the country he loves?

Why doesn't he come back and clear up these convictions and allegations against him?

I'm sure he could wield sufficient influence in the cases against him that have yet to be tried, to not be too worried about them, but the problem rests with the conviction already passed down. As much as it was a fairly trivial business, in terms of what these politicians usually get up to, it was illegal and it was an open and shut case - his signature is on the documents. It makes it virtually impossible to come up with any defence, were there to be a retrial (he can't appeal as the time elapsed for that).

I agree - "it was illegal and it was an open and shut case - his signature is on the documents. It makes it virtually impossible to come up with any defence, were there to be a retrial (he can't appeal as the time elapsed for that)."

I don't agree - "As much as it was a fairly trivial business, in terms of what these politicians usually get up to".

1. The amount of money concerned was considerable. Not trivial
   
2. Whether the amount of money concerned was small or large compared to the 'activities' of other politicians is besides the point
   
3. The laws concerned are there for very good reason, to protect what is in fact the property of all Thais, to protect that property from being unscrupulously & immorally gained by people who abuse the trust and power gained through high positions. Not trivial. In fact I suggest the penalties for such actions should be much higher.
   

[inquisitive]

Right on, too many here confuse Big Ts conviction with politics when it was in fact a criminal matter. Found guilty during the term of his brother-in-law.

I have been saying this untill I was ed in the face with many posters on the site

Thaskin is not a political criminal

His case was Criminal, and he was convicted under CRIMINAL LAW

And many here forget his conviction was not during the Coup or the Democrate Government

But while his own family was running the country

Quick reply.

"His own family was running the country" Where were you at this time ? They were elected to run the country but never allowed to do it. Some people should get their facts straights before posting.

Then Thaksin a criminal? A democratically elected PM deposed by a coup, a court that has no problem with that, then because Thaksin has to be convicted of something to justified the coup and they find nothing, he is finally convicted for a controversial land deal. Basically his wife bought a piece of land during an auction and she shouldn't have done that because her husband was PM at this time. Despite all the talks, that the only think the opposition ever found against it. A controversial land deal ! 5 years of chaos, almost a civil war and all they have is a controversial land deal !

I applaud your desire to find balance in evaluating the present situation, but you've got a couple of basic facts/assumptions slightly wrong. Unfortunately that little bit off center is enough to derail the whole analysis.

First, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Thaksin family government in power was never allowed to govern. Do you mean you believe that use of the checks and balances provided by the opposition should be eliminated? Do you have a particular incident in mind where you believe that the government was improperly blocked from carrying out its duties under the law? Or do you mean that everything would have bee OK if the government that you liked could be ABOVE the law? But if that's so, then what about the millions of citizens that disagree?

My point is that the rules are in place for a good reason, and every government must find a way to work within those rules or they should be condemmed. I'm sure that you'll agree. With that in mind, if the elected government was not running the country, then who was?

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Since you're trying to be objective I would guess that even you would have to agree that the press and media were not free and fair. Just as a single example, I was here when Thaksin first took over the country. He almost immedately ordered that all military and government radio stations only deliver news provided by his government. They could choose which stories they wanted to cover, but all information must come from the sheets povided each day. At that time over 90% of the population had no other radio stations to turn to, so this was a staggeringly powerful (and undemocratic) thing to order.

When even this edict was deemed insufficient, Thaksin ordered that those radio stations would now be REQUIRED to report the news as they were instructed. In other words, the stations could no longer decide to simply not report something they felt was wrong. Now they HAD to read government propaganda along with the news.

And do you remember the fellow on TV that spoke badly about Thaksin during his first campaign? Soon after Thaksin won, the announcer was fired. The announced reason was that he didn't have an announcers' license. It didn't matter that such a license didn't even exist. I could give you another 4-5 examples of abuse of power over the television media, but I'm sure you already have your own stories.

And surely I don't need to remind you about how Thaksin bullied the newspapers, creating black lists with whom the government would withold advertising and announcements. That was potentially a massive blow since the governent spends so much on print. I don't know if it ever actually happenned, but a the time it was believed that almost any newspaper that resisted would probably have to close shop. That's how powerful Thaksin's personal influence was overthe print media.

So with Thaksin outright owning 1/3 of the television stations and with the power of the government to coerce all the other media outlets, it can hardly be said that the population received the balanced information they needed to make an informed choice at the polls. How many years of this manipulation took place before the election you are calling democratic?

And let's not forget the outright vote buying. I was there in Isaan as the trucks with the megaphones drove through the villages announcing free telephone cards for those who voted right. My family were offered direct cash in hand. I KNOW that there was massive vote buying. I was there.

So your second misunderstanding is about the so-called democratic election. I'm sure you wouldn't call the recent Burmese election democratic, and anyone with a real knowledge of what was going on here in Thailand wouldn't refer to those elections as democratic either. Elections, yes; democratic, no.

I'd also take umbrage with your calling Thaksin's illegal land deal as "controversial." Of course the perpetrator has claimed he was right. So do the bank robbers when they are caught. At the same time, I doubt that you'd refer to the criminal who robbed the bank as having partaken in a 'controversial bank robbery' just because the fellow wouldn't admit he was a thief.

[rijb]

Thaksin will prevail. Guilt or innocence is not relevant in mega-rich and truly powerful circles. Power, not justice, is what the game is all about. Justice has never been blind at that level, anywhere in the world.

All this indignation from self righteous experts is just farts in the wind to the rich and powerful. (These comments are null and void for snipers and anarchists.)

[jayboy]

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

[rixalex]

I'm sure he could wield sufficient influence in the cases against him that have yet to be tried, to not be too worried about them, but the problem rests with the conviction already passed down. As much as it was a fairly trivial business, in terms of what these politicians usually get up to, it was illegal and it was an open and shut case - his signature is on the documents. It makes it virtually impossible to come up with any defence, were there to be a retrial (he can't appeal as the time elapsed for that).

I agree - "it was illegal and it was an open and shut case - his signature is on the documents. It makes it virtually impossible to come up with any defence, were there to be a retrial (he can't appeal as the time elapsed for that)."

I don't agree - "As much as it was a fairly trivial business, in terms of what these politicians usually get up to".

1. The amount of money concerned was considerable. Not trivial
   
2. Whether the amount of money concerned was small or large compared to the 'activities' of other politicians is besides the point
   
3. The laws concerned are there for very good reason, to protect what is in fact the property of all Thais, to protect that property from being unscrupulously & immorally gained by people who abuse the trust and power gained through high positions. Not trivial. In fact I suggest the penalties for such actions should be much higher.
   

Personally i don't think it was trivial, i agree, it's just that when you look at it in terms of what other things they get up to (by they, i mean corrupt politicians) it does then appear fairly minor. Stress on the word appear.

[moe666]

Eyes open, not likely. Just a refusal to except the facts Big T is a crook,tax evader,and scofflaw.

[rixalex]

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

Don't be daft. Of course we would. Just that the criticism would be coming from a different group of people.

And just imagine what the level of criticism would have been, had the Dems campaigned with a banned politician as their leader, and on the platform of some far-fetched, and i believe, soon to be proven, for those still in doubt, completely unrealistic and unachievable promises... less kindly, but perhaps more accurately known as lies.

[weka]

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

Back on topic, Jayboy, anything else I should learn about the Taksin criminal conviction that people haven't already (helpfully, thanks) explained to me?

To re-cap, it all looks pretty straight forward that he's a definite convicted criminal in the eyes of the law in a democratic Thailand?

my questions earlier were thus:

Why did K. Thaksin leave Thailand and refuse to come back in the last few years?

My understanding is that he has the resources to refute any unjust prison sentences and the means to appeal.

If he has done nothing wrong, then why hasn't he come back to the country he loves?

Why doesn't he come back and clear up these convictions and allegations against him?

[Moruya]

Right on, too many here confuse Big Ts conviction with politics when it was in fact a criminal matter. Found guilty during the term of his brother-in-law.

I have been saying this untill I was ed in the face with many posters on the site

Thaskin is not a political criminal

His case was Criminal, and he was convicted under CRIMINAL LAW

And many here forget his conviction was not during the Coup or the Democrate Government

But while his own family was running the country

Quick reply.

"His own family was running the country" Where were you at this time ? They were elected to run the country but never allowed to do it. Some people should get their facts straights before posting.

Then Thaksin a criminal? A democratically elected PM deposed by a coup, a court that has no problem with that, then because Thaksin has to be convicted of something to justified the coup and they find nothing, he is finally convicted for a controversial land deal. Basically his wife bought a piece of land during an auction and she shouldn't have done that because her husband was PM at this time. Despite all the talks, that the only think the opposition ever found against it. A controversial land deal ! 5 years of chaos, almost a civil war and all they have is a controversial land deal !

The reason they only have one conviction is that brave mister Thaksin ran away, ran away. Fled to UAE to stay.

Now, explain to me something. Thaksin resigned as PM and this was accepted by His Majesty the King. Under what democratic process was brave Mr. Thaksin reappointed?

I'll send you a bottle of Champagne if you can tell me. If you can't, you can wear a yellow t-shirt with the words "PAD Rules" on it for a week.

Deal?

[jayboy]

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

Don't be daft. Of course we would. Just that the criticism would be coming from a different group of people.

And just imagine what the level of criticism would have been, had the Dems campaigned with a banned politician as their leader, and on the platform of some far-fetched, and i believe, soon to be proven, for those still in doubt, completely unrealistic and unachievable promises... less kindly, but perhaps more accurately known as lies.

But since the Democrats campaigned on a platform heavily derived from Thaksin's populist policies, I wonder who should be calling whom daft! As I explained earlier in this thread (backed by Chris Baker, not exactly a pro Thaklsin commentator) the Democrats expected to win.They just couldn't have anticipated the appeal to the Thai people of Khun Yingluck (compounded of course by their own incompetence).

[jayboy]

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

Back on topic, Jayboy, anything else I should learn about the Taksin criminal conviction that people haven't already (helpfully, thanks) explained to me?

To re-cap, it all looks pretty straight forward that he's a definite convicted criminal in the eyes of the law in a democratic Thailand?

my questions earlier were thus:

Why did K. Thaksin leave Thailand and refuse to come back in the last few years?

My understanding is that he has the resources to refute any unjust prison sentences and the means to appeal.

If he has done nothing wrong, then why hasn't he come back to the country he loves?

Why doesn't he come back and clear up these convictions and allegations against him?

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

If you press me I think he should remain abroad or if he comes back he should face the music (serve some time).In reality of course there will be some form of deal.

I don't think the Democrats' obsession with Thaksin is the most important issue in Thai politics.

[anterian]

Thaksin fled because he realised he was in a game where all the cards were marked by his opponents. In a country where corruption is accepted as normal, and at all levels of society, criminal charges are nearly always politically motivated. Thus irregardless of the nature of Thaksin's sins, the motivations behind the charges leveled at him are political.

Thaksin was charged and convicted, not for being corrupt, but for being a threat to the old brigade establishment.

[weka]

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

Back on topic, Jayboy, anything else I should learn about the Taksin criminal conviction that people haven't already (helpfully, thanks) explained to me?

To re-cap, it all looks pretty straight forward that he's a definite convicted criminal in the eyes of the law in a democratic Thailand?

my questions earlier were thus:

Why did K. Thaksin leave Thailand and refuse to come back in the last few years?

My understanding is that he has the resources to refute any unjust prison sentences and the means to appeal.

If he has done nothing wrong, then why hasn't he come back to the country he loves?

Why doesn't he come back and clear up these convictions and allegations against him?

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

If you press me I think he should remain abroad or if he comes back he should face the music (serve some time).In reality of course there will be some form of deal.

I don't think the Democrats' obsession with Thaksin is the most important issue in Thai politics.

Thank you Jayboy

[Moruya]

Thaksin fled because he realised he was in a game where all the cards were marked by his opponents. In a country where corruption is accepted as normal, and at all levels of society, criminal charges are nearly always politically motivated. Thus irregardless of the nature of Thaksin's sins, the motivations behind the charges leveled at him are political.

Thaksin was charged and convicted, not for being corrupt, but for being a threat to the old brigade establishment.

Complete rubbish. He was convicted under his Brother in Law's government. He won't even return under his sister's government. Why? Guilty as sin.

Do you truly believe that he is innocent?

[whybother]

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

If you press me I think he should remain abroad or if he comes back he should face the music (serve some time).In reality of course there will be some form of deal.

I don't think the Democrats' obsession with Thaksin is the most important issue in Thai politics.

What serious charges haven't been made against Thaksin?

[rixalex]

But since the Democrats campaigned on a platform heavily derived from Thaksin's populist policies, I wonder who should be calling whom daft!

I'm not following you. Why does the fact that the Dems campaigned on a platform heavily derived from Thaksin's populist policies make me daft? I didn't say they didn't. I said, had they campaigned with the same outlandish promises as PTP - in particular the ones regarding wages - and had they won, they would have been criticised for winning votes by blatant lying. Of course all parties do lie when they campaign - i don't deny that, before you suggest i do. I just think that PTP crossed a line in the manner they did it. You are of course free to disagree with that. If you could though explain in what way you think i am being daft, i'd appreciate that.

The reason i was suggesting you were daft, in case you needed it clarifying, is because of your statement that had the Dems won we wouldn't be hearing any of the same sorts of criticisms that we do now of PTP's victory. I think that is daft because though the criticism might well be coming from a different quarter, it would most certainly still be coming.

Edited January 4, 2012 by rixalex

[rixalex]

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

I believe there are about a dozen cases that have been conveniently stalled by his fleeing. They might not be of the same gravity as the one to which i'm sure you infer, but i do believe them to be significantly more serious than the one for which he has already had his day in court on.

[IMA_FARANG]

Regarding colored shirts:

Maybe we should start a Ultraviolet/Infrared Shirts party?

Because human eys can't see any colors in the Ultraviolet or Infrared...we could be wearing that shirt...and no one would notice.

That would confuse everyone.

P.S. It;s a joke, son.

[inquisitive]

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

There are none so blind as those that do not wish to see.

[metisdead]

A post has been removed due to possible violation of copyright and non compliance of fair use. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

[inquisitive]

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post ...

How many exactly, Jayboy? Or was your opening statement blatant puffery? I think it's best to stick to facts whenever possible, and when venturing into opinion, it should be clearly labelled. That way we can hopefully avoid giving unintentional offense. I submit that your post would have been improved by starting with: "Even though I was not able to understand the post about which I am commenting ...". That would have been a more accurate reflection of the truth and the rest of your post would have been more easily accepted as an honest attempt at dialogue rather than reflexive argument.

[drdoom6996]

Wake up, your dreaming

[anterian]

Thaksin fled because he realised he was in a game where all the cards were marked by his opponents. In a country where corruption is accepted as normal, and at all levels of society, criminal charges are nearly always politically motivated. Thus irregardless of the nature of Thaksin's sins, the motivations behind the charges leveled at him are political.

Thaksin was charged and convicted, not for being corrupt, but for being a threat to the old brigade establishment.

Complete rubbish. He was convicted under his Brother in Law's government. He won't even return under his sister's government. Why? Guilty as sin.

Do you truly believe that he is innocent?

Before you throw around accusations of rubbish I suggest you read comments more carefully

Firstly I was replying to the question why did he flee the country. Now tell me where did I write that he is innocent? It is my often stated opinion in this forum that all Thai politicians, and that includes Thaksin, are guilty of numerous crimes, it's just that some have escaped the consequences. They are bettere connected than Thaksin with the people who count.

[sparebox2]

Thaksin is a criminal, and the sentence was pass by Thai court. Thaksin should show sprit and go to jail.

[Tanaka]

Right on, too many here confuse Big Ts conviction with politics when it was in fact a criminal matter. Found guilty during the term of his brother-in-law.

I have been saying this untill I was ed in the face with many posters on the site

Thaskin is not a political criminal

His case was Criminal, and he was convicted under CRIMINAL LAW

And many here forget his conviction was not during the Coup or the Democrate Government

But while his own family was running the country

Quick reply.

"His own family was running the country" Where were you at this time ? They were elected to run the country but never allowed to do it. Some people should get their facts straights before posting.

Then Thaksin a criminal? A democratically elected PM deposed by a coup, a court that has no problem with that, then because Thaksin has to be convicted of something to justified the coup and they find nothing, he is finally convicted for a controversial land deal. Basically his wife bought a piece of land during an auction and she shouldn't have done that because her husband was PM at this time. Despite all the talks, that the only think the opposition ever found against it. A controversial land deal ! 5 years of chaos, almost a civil war and all they have is a controversial land deal !

As usual you have your thoughts mixed up. Thaksin is convicted of a criminal act. It is not because his wife was charged with purgery and false statements. And this was before the Democrat Party came to power. Thaksin is a convicted, fugitive criminal. If you cannot comprehend the word convicted, look it up in Google. I understand English is not your mother language.

[fxe1200]

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

I believe there are about a dozen cases that have been conveniently stalled by his fleeing. They might not be of the same gravity as the one to which i'm sure you infer, but i do believe them to be significantly more serious than the one for which he has already had his day in court on.

Here is the complete (hopefully) of charges against Thaksin:

Acts of dishonesty:

1. Purchase of land worth 772 million baht from the Bank of Thailand's Financial Institutions Development Fund.

2. Purchase of rubber saplings worth 1.44 billion baht by the Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives.

3. Purchase of luggage conveyor belts and CTX 9000 bomb scanners.

Damage to state: 1.5 billion baht.

4. Issuance of two and three-digit lottery tickets by the Government Lottery Bureau.

Damage to state: 37.790 billion baht. +

5. Loans by Krung Thai Bank executives.

Damage to state: 5.185 billion baht.

Abuse of power to accumulate unusual wealth:

1. Change in agreement on revenue sharing for prepaid mobile phone services to benefit Advanced Info Service (AIS).

Damage to state: 71.667 billion baht.

2. Change in agreement on the rate of revenue sharing between TOT and AIS.

Damage to state: 700 million baht.

3. Issuing of an executive decree on telecommunications excise taxes, and a cabinet resolution turning concession fees into excise taxes.

Damage to state: 30.667 billion baht.

4. Instructing TOT to rent and invest unnecessarily in the satellite frequency of Shin Satellite.

Damage to state: 700 million baht.

5. Ordering Exim Bank to allow the Burmese government to draw loans amounting to 1 billion baht in order to buy products and services from Shin Satellite.

6. Using international trade negotiations to trade national interests for those of the satellite businesses of Shin Corp, adding considerable business value to Shin Satellite.

[AleG]

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

I believe there are about a dozen cases that have been conveniently stalled by his fleeing. They might not be of the same gravity as the one to which i'm sure you infer, but i do believe them to be significantly more serious than the one for which he has already had his day in court on.

Here is the complete (hopefully) of charges against Thaksin:

Acts of dishonesty:

1. Purchase of land worth 772 million baht from the Bank of Thailand's Financial Institutions Development Fund.

2. Purchase of rubber saplings worth 1.44 billion baht by the Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives.

3. Purchase of luggage conveyor belts and CTX 9000 bomb scanners.

Damage to state: 1.5 billion baht.

4. Issuance of two and three-digit lottery tickets by the Government Lottery Bureau.

Damage to state: 37.790 billion baht. +

5. Loans by Krung Thai Bank executives.

Damage to state: 5.185 billion baht.

Abuse of power to accumulate unusual wealth:

1. Change in agreement on revenue sharing for prepaid mobile phone services to benefit Advanced Info Service (AIS).

Damage to state: 71.667 billion baht.

2. Change in agreement on the rate of revenue sharing between TOT and AIS.

Damage to state: 700 million baht.

3. Issuing of an executive decree on telecommunications excise taxes, and a cabinet resolution turning concession fees into excise taxes.

Damage to state: 30.667 billion baht.

4. Instructing TOT to rent and invest unnecessarily in the satellite frequency of Shin Satellite.

Damage to state: 700 million baht.

5. Ordering Exim Bank to allow the Burmese government to draw loans amounting to 1 billion baht in order to buy products and services from Shin Satellite.

6. Using international trade negotiations to trade national interests for those of the satellite businesses of Shin Corp, adding considerable business value to Shin Satellite.

Boy, that's a lot of honest mistakes!

[Moruya]

Thaksin fled because he realised he was in a game where all the cards were marked by his opponents. In a country where corruption is accepted as normal, and at all levels of society, criminal charges are nearly always politically motivated. Thus irregardless of the nature of Thaksin's sins, the motivations behind the charges leveled at him are political.

Thaksin was charged and convicted, not for being corrupt, but for being a threat to the old brigade establishment.

Complete rubbish. He was convicted under his Brother in Law's government. He won't even return under his sister's government. Why? Guilty as sin.

Do you truly believe that he is innocent?

Before you throw around accusations of rubbish I suggest you read comments more carefully

Firstly I was replying to the question why did he flee the country. Now tell me where did I write that he is innocent? It is my often stated opinion in this forum that all Thai politicians, and that includes Thaksin, are guilty of numerous crimes, it's just that some have escaped the consequences. They are bettere connected than Thaksin with the people who count.

Let's backtrack a bit. The only body that Thaksin could possibly have considered to be against him would be the judiciary since the rest of the aces were held by him. But certainly not all the cards were marked against him. Far from it.

Secondly, and this isn't a pop a you, the breed of corrupt politicians needs to be rendereed extinct as quickly as possible from the political scene. Thaksin would be a great trophy to start with.