Thaksin Should Receive Criminal Sentence: Green Group Coordinator

[Farang0tang]

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.

If he is to ever, ever, ever, be held to serve his sentence, perhaps there will be a whole raft of other charges against the man:

Belligerant Bull$hitting

1. Millions of Thais file civil suits as they did not become rich within 6 months.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Farang0tang

[wxyz]

mr T did his opposition a favor with his self exile.

[MaiChai]

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

In a nutshell and to the point.

Edited January 4, 2012 by MaiChai

[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.

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.

"The only body that Thaksin could possibly have considered to be against him would be the judiciary", Not forgetting the army, PAD and a large majority of the elite and royalists.

Again, I am not defending Thaksin, just saying that any sensible criminal would do a runner with those odds stacked against him.

[gl555]

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

I don't think the Reds out there and the ones who post here care. They just want him back. Reds aren't too bright you see.

[gl555]

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?

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.

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.

Riiiight proven 'innocent'? If he was so innocent like all you Red apologists claim then be a man and come back and face those charges. And thanks for enlighterning us with your 'legend'.

I simply love how you Red apologists just make up stuff as they go along.

[gl555]

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.

Yes Thaksin is an innocent virgin in a massage parlor. Boohoo.

[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.

Yes Thaksin is an innocent virgin in a massage parlor. Boohoo.

Try understanding what I wrote instead of just making trite comments.

[airconsult]

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!

Not arguing about all of them - but some of those are pretty weak.......

eg

"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."

Let's see - I change the law regarding revenue sharing for prepaid services (not affecting just one company, but all of them holding concessions - AIS, DTAC, TRUE).

Because those companies can now offer prepaid services cheaper, then growth in mobile use rises dramatically (don't have the figure in front of me right now) and correspondingly the revenue returned to government rises. The fallacy in this charge is assuming that the growth in mobile use would have stayed the same if the costs had stayed at the higher level - all three concession holders disagree with that.

If I remember correctly, early in 2010 TOT was instructed (threatened) by the Minister that they had to sue AIS to recover all 71 billion thb - after consulting legal advice, TOT did not proceed with a case as monetary damages (if any) would be impossible to prove.

Regardless, it's sparked my interest again.... I'll have to go back and look at mobile use uptake in thailand before and after the concession change, and try and extrapolate whether there was any total increase or decrease in revenue to the government.

Cheers

[rixalex]

Again, I am not defending Thaksin, just saying that any sensible criminal would do a runner with those odds stacked against him.

Sensible criminals don't get caught in the first place.

As for odds being stacked against him, he usually had them swing in his favour with the power of money. For once, and even with the desperate 2 million Baht lunch box bribe offer, he didn't get his way. Boo Hoo.

[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.

... 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 bring up a valid point. I am not aware of any credible international observer that reported the election procceedings as being improper. That is a powerful and important point. That having bee said, we have to realize that those observers were only in place to monitor the election proceedings and NOT to declare whether they conformed in entirety to democratic principles. As a result, I have to agree that the physical event we know as an election was fairly administered on election day.

At the same time, I don't remember any investigation into vote buying, which of course was rampant, nor did I see a single report that stated that the populace had access to a fair or balanced media. I KNOW from living here that there was open and notorious vote buying in the provinces that voted for Thaksin. I also KNOW that the vast majority of the people that voted for Thaksin had been limited for several YEARS to only the information Thaksin wanted them to hear. I'm also aware that in many, many instances that information was a flat-out lie. (For a single example, just remember back to what was published about the airport and compare it with what we've learned since. Remember those cracks in the runway that Thaksin personally stated did not exist? Well, they did, and some good people had their lives ruined for telling the truth while Thaksin was in power.)

So to summarize the events at that time, it appears to me that the election day procedures were carried out with only minor incidents, and therefore Thaksin was truly elected. At the same time, the people did not have the information to cast an informed vote, and there was massive vote buying. Either one of those things would make it impossible to call the election truly democratic.

[whybother]

Not arguing about all of them - but some of those are pretty weak.......

eg

"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."

Let's see - I change the law regarding revenue sharing for prepaid services (not affecting just one company, but all of them holding concessions - AIS, DTAC, TRUE).

Because those companies can now offer prepaid services cheaper, then growth in mobile use rises dramatically (don't have the figure in front of me right now) and correspondingly the revenue returned to government rises. The fallacy in this charge is assuming that the growth in mobile use would have stayed the same if the costs had stayed at the higher level - all three concession holders disagree with that.

If I remember correctly, early in 2010 TOT was instructed (threatened) by the Minister that they had to sue AIS to recover all 71 billion thb - after consulting legal advice, TOT did not proceed with a case as monetary damages (if any) would be impossible to prove.

Regardless, it's sparked my interest again.... I'll have to go back and look at mobile use uptake in thailand before and after the concession change, and try and extrapolate whether there was any total increase or decrease in revenue to the government.

Cheers

Just because some other companies also benefited from the law change, doesn't mean that it wasn't a clear conflict of interest with him being the PM and a large shareholder in one of the companies that benefited.

[anterian]

Again, I am not defending Thaksin, just saying that any sensible criminal would do a runner with those odds stacked against him.

Sensible criminals don't get caught in the first place.

As for odds being stacked against him, he usually had them swing in his favour with the power of money. For once, and even with the desperate 2 million Baht lunch box bribe offer, he didn't get his way. Boo Hoo.

Remember Al Capone, they could only catch him on an Inland Revenue offence. Seems with Thaksin they could only catch him on a dubious lands deal.

[moe666]

My old ex from Isaan and proud of it use to ask her dad why do you vote for that crook? His response, they give me 500baht. Enough said.

[rixalex]

Again, I am not defending Thaksin, just saying that any sensible criminal would do a runner with those odds stacked against him.

Sensible criminals don't get caught in the first place.

As for odds being stacked against him, he usually had them swing in his favour with the power of money. For once, and even with the desperate 2 million Baht lunch box bribe offer, he didn't get his way. Boo Hoo.

Remember Al Capone, they could only catch him on an Inland Revenue offence. Seems with Thaksin they could only catch him on a dubious lands deal.

The only reason he has only been convicted on the land deal is that he fled before the other cases, as listed by fxe below, could be followed up.

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.

[Skywalker69]

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 !

Why deny the fact that he was not even legally Premier Caretaker?

[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 !

Why deny the fact that he was not even legally Premier Caretaker?

Splendid Captain Skywalker.

Thaksin had resigned - his resignation was accepted by the King. He then went on "holiday"

[airconsult]

Not arguing about all of them - but some of those are pretty weak.......

eg

"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."

Let's see - I change the law regarding revenue sharing for prepaid services (not affecting just one company, but all of them holding concessions - AIS, DTAC, TRUE).

Because those companies can now offer prepaid services cheaper, then growth in mobile use rises dramatically (don't have the figure in front of me right now) and correspondingly the revenue returned to government rises. The fallacy in this charge is assuming that the growth in mobile use would have stayed the same if the costs had stayed at the higher level - all three concession holders disagree with that.

If I remember correctly, early in 2010 TOT was instructed (threatened) by the Minister that they had to sue AIS to recover all 71 billion thb - after consulting legal advice, TOT did not proceed with a case as monetary damages (if any) would be impossible to prove.

Regardless, it's sparked my interest again.... I'll have to go back and look at mobile use uptake in thailand before and after the concession change, and try and extrapolate whether there was any total increase or decrease in revenue to the government.

Cheers

Just because some other companies also benefited from the law change, doesn't mean that it wasn't a clear conflict of interest with him being the PM and a large shareholder in one of the companies that benefited.

I agree with that as the court has decided in another case that the transfer of shares was invalid? As you know it's illegal to criticise the decisions of judges, but I'm not sure of their reasoning there - the SEC accepted the transfer of shares, and the law states that an MP or his spouse may not own/control more than 5% - it mentions nothing about sisters, brothers, cousins, sons, daughters - if it did you would have to arrest almost every MP.

So the argument about him still retaining control (which he probably did), would apply to everyone. I think that the fault in the law is it depends too much on individual judge's opinions, not on anything hard and measurable eg. If they produced an email/fax/recorded phone call, in court of Thaksin instructing his sister/brother..etc on specific management issues of the shareholding - then yes, guilty. But if you just "assume" that he controlled it because other members of his family had the ownership of the shares - slippery slope?

But all that aside - what I was picking on was the damages estimate - as I hinted, both the state and other companies may actually have benefited from the change - the figure of 71 billion was invented by someone with the motive of shocking people into believing it without question.

Cheers

[sparebox2]

Quote above "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."

I once remeneber that electronic good in Thailand was much more expensive that Singapore because Thailand tax them at 50% rate. Some govt in the pass decided that to remain competitive (especially with Singapore), the tax rate was reduced to 5%. So must we go after that PM who slash tax, as the Custom & Excise department looses billion of potential tax revenue everyday, and counting?

Thanks to Thaksin, for paying 71 billion on behalfs of all phones users (not limited to AIS). If he was wrong is doing so, why didn't Mark govt correct the wrong, and up the tax to the original rate? Surely that mean that Mark govt did not do his job in correcting the mistake his govt pointed out, and continue to let the govt loose billion every month? Or was it because the Thaksin govt the right thing at that time?

[whybother]

Quote above "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."

I once remeneber that electronic good in Thailand was much more expensive that Singapore because Thailand tax them at 50% rate. Some govt in the pass decided that to remain competitive (especially with Singapore), the tax rate was reduced to 5%. So must we go after that PM who slash tax, as the Custom & Excise department looses billion of potential tax revenue everyday, and counting?

Thanks to Thaksin, for paying 71 billion on behalfs of all phones users (not limited to AIS). If he was wrong is doing so, why didn't Mark govt correct the wrong, and up the tax to the original rate? Surely that mean that Mark govt did not do his job in correcting the mistake his govt pointed out, and continue to let the govt loose billion every month? Or was it because the Thaksin govt the right thing at that time?

Thaksin changed the laws to benefit his company. It was a change in revenue sharing, so the amount of revenue didn't change, just that it didn't go to the government anymore.

The earlier government reduced taxes on imported electronic goods, so any company that imported electronic goods would benefit and those savings were passed on to the consumer.

[sparebox2]

Quote above "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."

I once remeneber that electronic good in Thailand was much more expensive that Singapore because Thailand tax them at 50% rate. Some govt in the pass decided that to remain competitive (especially with Singapore), the tax rate was reduced to 5%. So must we go after that PM who slash tax, as the Custom & Excise department looses billion of potential tax revenue everyday, and counting?

Thanks to Thaksin, for paying 71 billion on behalfs of all phones users (not limited to AIS). If he was wrong is doing so, why didn't Mark govt correct the wrong, and up the tax to the original rate? Surely that mean that Mark govt did not do his job in correcting the mistake his govt pointed out, and continue to let the govt loose billion every month? Or was it because the Thaksin govt the right thing at that time?

Thaksin changed the laws to benefit his company. It was a change in revenue sharing, so the amount of revenue didn't change, just that it didn't go to the government anymore.

The earlier government reduced taxes on imported electronic goods, so any company that imported electronic goods would benefit and those savings were passed on to the consumer.

Same same: Thaksin government reduced taxes on mobile calls, so any company (example TRUE, DTAC, etc) that provides call would benefit and those savings were passed on to the consumer.

PS. Did you not notice the call rate went down from 12 Bahts (BKK-Chiangmai) to 1.50 Baht/min (less with promotion) during that time? You probably was not in Thailand then.

Edited January 6, 2012 by sparebox2

[devster1991]

William L. Monson is my grandfather...and he deserves to get his money back, I have watched him fight for it since I was a kid....Thaksin is a snake who stole everything from my grandfather.

[GentlemanJim]

William L. Monson is my grandfather...and he deserves to get his money back, I have watched him fight for it since I was a kid....Thaksin is a snake who stole everything from my grandfather.

Now that is a stunner of a first post!! Welcome, please tell us more of your Grandfathers story, I am sure others as well as myself will find it absolutely fascinating.

[OzMick]

Same same: Thaksin government reduced taxes on mobile calls, so any company (example TRUE, DTAC, etc) that provides call would benefit and those savings were passed on to the consumer.

PS. Did you not notice the call rate went down from 12 Bahts (BKK-Chiangmai) to 1.50 Baht/min (less with promotion) during that time? You probably was not in Thailand then.

So what was the rate when Thaksin had a monopoly? Or weren't you in Thailand then?

BTW Please note the correct grammar.

Edited November 10, 2012 by OzMick

[Rich teacher]

I love this one regarding the Sale of Shin Corp;

The transaction made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation. The Democrat party spokesman called Thaksin worse than Saddam for not protecting the Thai economy from foreigners: "Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland."

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva had criticized Thaksin earlier for not sufficiently opening up the Thai telecom sector to foreigners. The complete sale of Shin Corporation by the Shinawatra-Damapong families had been a long-standing demand of some public groups,as it would allow Thaksin to undertake his duties as Prime Minister without accusation of conflicts of interest.

Wikipedia

Edited November 10, 2012 by Rich teacher

[GentlemanJim]

I love this one regarding the Sale of Shin Corp;

The transaction made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation. The Democrat party spokesman called Thaksin worse than Saddam for not protecting the Thai economy from foreigners: "Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland."

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva had criticized Thaksin earlier for not sufficiently opening up the Thai telecom sector to foreigners. The complete sale of Shin Corporation by the Shinawatra-Damapong families had been a long-standing demand of some public groups,as it would allow Thaksin to undertake his duties as Prime Minister without accusation of conflicts of interest.

Wikipedia

Now Mr Teacher you should be fully aware that regarding any information on subjects such as this, wiki is authored by whoever can be arsed to write on it's pages. The entry you quote could have been written by Thaksin or Amsterdam themselves. Reliability ......0%.

[rubl]

Rather than offering some more partial quotes, here the link to the wiki page a poster quoted from. Let me just copy the first paragraph here followed by the link

"The 2006 sale of the Shinawatra family's share of Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings caused great controversy in Thailand. The sale was in response to long-standing criticisms that the Shinawatra family's holdings created a conflict of interest for Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Criticisms of the sale focused on the allegations by Thaksin and a compliant government that the transaction was exempt from capital gains tax (as per Revenue Department and Stock Exchange of Thailand regulations - later determined by Thai courts not to be legal), the fact that the Thai company was sold to a Singaporean company, and the fact that the Thai law regarding foreign investments in the telecom sector had been amended just prior to the sale (although the amendment had been proposed since 2001). Thaksin's sale also impacted holdings, among other parties, of the Crown Property Bureau that has investment in the Siam Commercial Bank that held ShinCorp stock."

http://en.wikipedia....emasek_Holdings

[MikeOboe57]

I love this one regarding the Sale of Shin Corp;

The transaction made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation. The Democrat party spokesman called Thaksin worse than Saddam for not protecting the Thai economy from foreigners: "Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland."

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva had criticized Thaksin earlier for not sufficiently opening up the Thai telecom sector to foreigners. The complete sale of Shin Corporation by the Shinawatra-Damapong families had been a long-standing demand of some public groups,as it would allow Thaksin to undertake his duties as Prime Minister without accusation of conflicts of interest.

Wikipedia

Now Mr Teacher you should be fully aware that regarding any information on subjects such as this, wiki is authored by whoever can be arsed to write on it's pages. The entry you quote could have been written by Thaksin or Amsterdam themselves. Reliability ......0%.

Robert Amsterdam even managed to write his own Wiki-biography, a lazy copy-and-paste from the Amsterdam&Peroff site.

[OzMick]

I love this one regarding the Sale of Shin Corp;

The transaction made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation. The Democrat party spokesman called Thaksin worse than Saddam for not protecting the Thai economy from foreigners: "Dictator Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland."

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva had criticized Thaksin earlier for not sufficiently opening up the Thai telecom sector to foreigners. The complete sale of Shin Corporation by the Shinawatra-Damapong families had been a long-standing demand of some public groups,as it would allow Thaksin to undertake his duties as Prime Minister without accusation of conflicts of interest.

Wikipedia

Wasn't it nice of him not to mention that Thaksin got rich from that company having a monopoly on telecommunications in Thailand, overcharging on call rates, handsets and anything else they could use to extort money from the people?

[jbrain]

Thaksin doesn't want to come back.

A Thai who has been once abroad and seen the real world doesn't want to come back to Thailand.