Thaksin Holding Thailand Hostage: Abhisit

[tlansford]

-- snip --

I think there is some truth here. Most Thais love him so that should be enough. Majority rules.

Yeh,that's what Adolp said

"Adolp" never said anything of the sort, nor did "Adolp" ever win a majority in an open election.

Democracy is precisely that, a majority rule. Check other countries and you won't find any other minority ruled democracy except maybe Thailand where elected gov'ts keep getting sidelined.

The states had Bush with a minority.

But then again they don't claim to be a democracy they claim to be a Republic.

Thailand is ruled by a minority Government they only got 48% of the vote.

Where I went to school in the west that was called a minority.

The US elects based on the electoral college. But you know that.

[Buchholz]

Thaksin is holding Thailand hostage ?

yeah, right... First of all, how is Thailand being held hostage? A ludicrous statement itself.

... rest removed

When a criminal on the run still dictates what his clone sister's government and his "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts" party need to do, with government and cabinet members trying to push through reconciliation 'our way', dialogue is no longer necessary, I think you might be justified to say this megalomaniac holds the country at ransom and as hostage.

You're right, of course.

To not see it.. is ludicrous.

.

[Buchholz]

10 green bottles and if one green bottle should accidently fall there'll be:

"Abhisit said all political troubles had Thaksin as the root cause because society had to sustain the collateral damage stemmed from efforts to solve Thaksin's legal wrangling."

"Thaksin regime?" Give me a break.

In the courts and concerning not the electorate right mate.

Cake and eat it or cake box and eat cake box and eat it (if it ever existed).

Only the Nation there to go on for that story like the fake story about the defects at Swampy airport also highlighted by the Nation.

Thaksin's lawyers banged up for 6 months without charge. (Never charged).

and then struck off by lawyers council of thailand (affiliated to PAD).

1% failure rate measured at airport in fact.

British Airways (world's largest airline, thought airport was very good).

Airport opening postponed for 1 year until after coup.

Second runway due to have been opened by now.

This is their way.

All I want to say is this to anyone out there bewildered by what you read here that 2 years ago:

I read that there was a redshirt gathering to occur in Silom and posters on here trolled and scoffed that redshirts would all be drunk and unpopular.causing trouble.

Living there as I did in the afluent part of town that it is I went to visit and saw a large number of people, not one beer can amongst about 6-700 people listening intently to public speeches and making way for Pat pong tourists going about their business.

Perhaps you didn't see anyone with beer because there might be a shortage of beer availability in your neighborhood due to over consumption by some of its inhabitants.

.

Now then, you said:

Thaksin's lawyers banged up for 6 months without charge. (Never charged).

That's False

In case people don't remember ---- Bakery Scandal ----- 2008?

http://english.peopl...51/6437022.html

Thailand's Supreme Court on Wednesday handed down a six-month jail term to each of three lawyers working for ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra over a charge of attempted bribery in which a lawyer handed a pastry box filled with cash to a court official on June 10.

Then, you said:

Airport opening postponed for 1 year until after coup.

That's also False. It opened less than 10 days later.

Suvarnabhumi officially opened at 03:00 on 28 September 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvarnabhumi_Airport#Early_construction.2C_airport_tests.2C_and_official_opening

Please have consideration for your neighbors and purchase beer from a wholesaler so that area retailers don't run out.

[pisico]

It erupted because a free elected government got kicked out of office,by army,bkk hiso and others who did not want to lose power

ha

"Seems everyone wants to rewrite Thai history to please his own beliefs" quote by my Thai Wife (sorry educated Thai Wife from Issan)

Yesterday, conversing with a university student of Science (Physics and mathematics) she was aghast and ready to slap me when I mentioned to her that the King had been born in Boston, in the US. She replied that she never heard that in school, not even in high school. I replied, do not believe me, try to find the truth by yourself. Her retort was she would go to the wat the following day and ask a monk.

Indeed, in Thailand, history is what the powers that be say it is.

Edited April 12, 2012 by pisico

[metisdead]

A post containing a comment on moderation as well as comments regarding other posters has been removed. Posters are reminded to stay on topic and to refrain from comments concerning the character of other posters.

[metisdead]

No matter how veiled the insinuations are, do not go there:

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule will result in immediate ban.

From this point on, anymore veiled insinuations/speculations, suspensions will be issued.

A certain poster has posted these insinuations in other topics previously followed by this very public warning after deleting the offending posts, a final formal warning has been issued.

[anterian]

Here we go again, the same old arguments from both sides. the fact is Abhisit is a useless milksop and Thaksin is a corrupt egomaniac. Take your choice, ignore the fact that it is out of your hands, you don't even get to vote, you are just a noisy spectator. The Thais have their own way of doing things, it's not democratic, never has been. The poor country folk may be uneducated but they are not stupid, they understand corruption, they are part of it, they see through Abhisit's pretty face and nice speeches, just as they understand Thaksin's ego and corruption. This is not Europe or America or Australia, this is Asia where most countries are ruled by strong egomaniacs, from China to Cambodia. If I had to choose between a useless milksop and a corrupt egomaniac, I would chose the corrupt maniac every time, and it would seem that most Thais feel the same.

A red-shirt wife? From Udorn or Khon Kaen or Nonkhai? Time will heal your opinion!

You are just so wrong in your assumptions that it is laughable, I live just outside Bangkok, I do not have a red shirt wife. My opinion is based on years of study and have no need of healing, they are quite healthy and robust, unlike your knee jerk response.

[anterian]

Here we go again, the same old arguments from both sides. the fact is Abhisit is a useless milksop and Thaksin is a corrupt egomaniac. Take your choice, ignore the fact that it is out of your hands, you don't even get to vote, you are just a noisy spectator. The Thais have their own way of doing things, it's not democratic, never has been. The poor country folk may be uneducated but they are not stupid, they understand corruption, they are part of it, they see through Abhisit's pretty face and nice speeches, just as they understand Thaksin's ego and corruption. This is not Europe or America or Australia, this is Asia where most countries are ruled by strong egomaniacs, from China to Cambodia. If I had to choose between a useless milksop and a corrupt egomaniac, I would chose the corrupt maniac every time, and it would seem that most Thais feel the same.

Interesting to see, your post and supporters are not claiming any moral high ground,just good old fashioned greed! the rights and wrongs of it,do not seem to be of any concern. Merely a position of strength is all important, sorry,but for most genuine people,it's the Politics of the Lunatic Asylum.

I will back the "Milksop",at least they can be trusted not to knife you in the back,when they don't get their own way.

Exactly my point, you are thinking as a westerner, Thais think as Asians. Further it is not the politics of the asylum, it is the politics of feudal and tribal societies. Study your own history, if you haven't got one study Roman history.

[visionchaser45]

You lost me, dear chap. You put some words together to form a sentence, but it neither reflects what k. Abhisit, nor what I said.

The current government is reasonably legitimate with some doubt in how far a criminal on the run can be allowed to control what that government does. K. Abhist said k. Thaksin is holding the country hostage, seems a reasonable description.

I see let's get this right:

This criminal is holding the country to ransom because......

His crime was:

oh yes his wife bought some land at auction. Nothing wrong with that except that her husband was the prime minister.

His CRIME:

being married to his wife.

being the prime minister.

Further he sold his company and as a consequence of running a successful financial regime he was able to :

sell his shareholding (aquired before he became prime minister since he started said company)

at a profit of 117%.

(Although the Thai SET had risen by 133% in the same period he was condemned and had 1 billion dollars deducted from his frozen accounts).

Part and parcel of this fine was the fact that when prime minister he had reduced the duty payable to CAT and TOT(the National carriers)

set at 25% for mobile phone bills paid monthly in arrears to 20% for the new Pay as you go rates that enabled the poor to own phones.

Increased revenues followed substantially and additionally his government demanded that the fees were paid diredtly to government as excise duty and the part privatised TOT and CAT received in return due owed to them from the government as there was a problem with leakage of funds owed to government.

This reply reminds me of the saying about the fool and the wise men.

k. Thaksin's crime (or the only case which could proceed because he was still here) is none of what you write. He's not convicted because his wife bought some land, he's not convicted because he was married to the wife (at that time), he was not convicted because he was the PM. He was convicted because he had violated a conflict-of-interest law while in office and was sentenced to two years in prison.

The rest of the post is equally incorrect, but I'm not going to bother with finding all the details to correct a post which might have taken a foolmember two minites to write down.

Have fun and try a bit harder to stick to the truth.

Hey, at least he didn't accept a small gratuity for appearing on a television cooking program.

[visionchaser45]

Look at the large picture in retrospect,

Thakskin was good for Thailand, the coup was not good for Thailand,

Or why not look at the large picture without the tinted glasses.

If Thaksin had been good there wouldn't have been a coup.

Nonsense. The coup had to do with much more than Thaksin. He was the excuse...not the reason.

What do YOU think the reason was, then?

The wrong pig was at the trough and the other pigs got jealous and angry.

[scorecard]

Dear visionchaser, suggest you carefully reread some Thai history, especially the last 10 to 12 years.

[scorecard]

You lost me, dear chap. You put some words together to form a sentence, but it neither reflects what k. Abhisit, nor what I said.

The current government is reasonably legitimate with some doubt in how far a criminal on the run can be allowed to control what that government does. K. Abhist said k. Thaksin is holding the country hostage, seems a reasonable description.

I see let's get this right:

This criminal is holding the country to ransom because......

His crime was:

oh yes his wife bought some land at auction. Nothing wrong with that except that her husband was the prime minister.

His CRIME:

being married to his wife.

being the prime minister.

Further he sold his company and as a consequence of running a successful financial regime he was able to :

sell his shareholding (aquired before he became prime minister since he started said company)

at a profit of 117%.

(Although the Thai SET had risen by 133% in the same period he was condemned and had 1 billion dollars deducted from his frozen accounts).

Part and parcel of this fine was the fact that when prime minister he had reduced the duty payable to CAT and TOT(the National carriers)

set at 25% for mobile phone bills paid monthly in arrears to 20% for the new Pay as you go rates that enabled the poor to own phones.

Increased revenues followed substantially and additionally his government demanded that the fees were paid diredtly to government as excise duty and the part privatised TOT and CAT received in return due owed to them from the government as there was a problem with leakage of funds owed to government.

This reply reminds me of the saying about the fool and the wise men.

k. Thaksin's crime (or the only case which could proceed because he was still here) is none of what you write. He's not convicted because his wife bought some land, he's not convicted because he was married to the wife (at that time), he was not convicted because he was the PM. He was convicted because he had violated a conflict-of-interest law while in office and was sentenced to two years in prison.

The rest of the post is equally incorrect, but I'm not going to bother with finding all the details to correct a post which might have taken a foolmember two minites to write down.

Have fun and try a bit harder to stick to the truth.

Hey, at least he didn't accept a small gratuity for appearing on a television cooking program.

Rubl points out, correctly, that your previous post is full of serious mistakes and untruths about very seriosu matters, and you reply with a silly comment about cooking shows.

This country does have serious problems right now, certainly not helped by people who deliberately write seriously untruthful messages.

You work with jatuporn by any chance?

[visionchaser45]

Dear visionchaser, suggest you carefully reread some Thai history, especially the last 10 to 12 years.

Great, who should I read first? How about E.W. Hutchinson? Maybe a little Daniel McGilvary? I could get warmed up with Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's "A History of Thailand." What do you suggest? I could read The Nation's "A Brief History of Modern Thai Politics," but it might be just a little bit slanted...don't you think? I've been around for the past 10 years, so I've no need to read a book about that. Where did you acquire your wealth of knowledge on the subject?

[TongueThaied]

Yeah, it's not like the coup that started this whole mess was legal. If Thailand wants to be a nation of laws, it should turn back the clock, bring Thaksin back as prime minister and forgo future coups. If he was a bad guy, he should have been removed through legal process. People who supported the coup (Abhisit, for example) have no room to complain.

[jambodave]

Is it just me? or has any other Members,noticed an abundance of novices,with no idea of Thai Politics,and spouting nonsense,on this and other threads at the moment?

Hmm, quite strange,the depth of feeling they put into their political posts!

I d eclare myself a novice and therefore will not spout nonsense about a subject of which I have no knowledge.Senior Members have a lot too say about a subject they cannot influence in anyway ie. VOTE.The only people with the right to complain are Thais.If the thought of Mr T returning to Thailand fills you such fear get to <Snip!> out if now.It gives my arse a sore head having to read constant attacks on thai society by people who have chosen to live here.For the love of god lighten up. Edited April 13, 2012 by metisdead
Disguised expletive removed.

[whybother]

Yeah, it's not like the coup that started this whole mess was legal. If Thailand wants to be a nation of laws, it should turn back the clock, bring Thaksin back as prime minister and forgo future coups. If he was a bad guy, he should have been removed through legal process. People who supported the coup (Abhisit, for example) have no room to complain.

This whole mess started well before the coup.

[Babcock]

Answer to Bucholz ( can't figure out all the quotes , endquotes etc to post and gave up).

Just go to Wikipedia then and check your facts.

Thaksin's lawyers were never charged.

quote from (Not) the Nation:

"According to a report by the Nation news website, Supreme Court Vice President Mongkol Thapthiang, who heads a panel investigating the case, said the panel found the three guilty of the bribery charge by handing the pastry box containing two million baht (some61,000 U.S. dollars) in cash to a court official when they appeared on June 10, representing Thaksin and his wife Pojaman, at the court to report that the couple had returned from a business trip overseas. "

The same paper that broke the story.

Now one of the lawyers is a Pheu Thai MP. Is that possible if he has served a prison sentence?

You should check out Wikipedia and do some cross referencing. You may find that what is reported there does not tally with what is reported here in the english language newspapers.

As for the airport the general who took over the airport after the coup firstly he sacked all the directors and secondly he seized around 6 million dollars to give to his buddies in his regiment and thirdly when cracks appeared in the runway (built with the correct materials) he refused to repair it as he wished to blame Thaksin for any future failure.

Every day I see Jonathan Head reporting from Turkey on the syrian crisis.

We were told here when he was the BBC reporter for Thailand that Thaksin had bought him and he lleft here with 2 LM charges against his name so he cannot return.

[Babcock]

How can I upload a video clip here? I downloaded it back in February from Thaivisa and I was amazed by it. It's a .flv file (7 mb) and I've tried various formats with no success.

I've been accused of lying and just wish to set the recoed straight

[TongueThaied]

Yeah, it's not like the coup that started this whole mess was legal. If Thailand wants to be a nation of laws, it should turn back the clock, bring Thaksin back as prime minister and forgo future coups. If he was a bad guy, he should have been removed through legal process. People who supported the coup (Abhisit, for example) have no room to complain.

This whole mess started well before the coup.

Sure, but when do you finally decide to start following the law? After you unlawfully get things they way you want them? Thaksin pulled some shit that seems pretty far outside the law to me. But had there been a concerted effort to deal with those problems with the framework of the law, Thailand would have been better for it. If coups are an acceptable fix, then Thailand should simply dispense with domocratic ideals altogether and go back to an absolute monarchy.

[Babcock]

You lost me, dear chap. You put some words together to form a sentence, but it neither reflects what k. Abhisit, nor what I said.

The current government is reasonably legitimate with some doubt in how far a criminal on the run can be allowed to control what that government does. K. Abhist said k. Thaksin is holding the country hostage, seems a reasonable description.

I see let's get this right:

This criminal is holding the country to ransom because......

His crime was:

oh yes his wife bought some land at auction. Nothing wrong with that except that her husband was the prime minister.

His CRIME:

being married to his wife.

being the prime minister.

Further he sold his company and as a consequence of running a successful financial regime he was able to :

sell his shareholding (aquired before he became prime minister since he started said company)

at a profit of 117%.

(Although the Thai SET had risen by 133% in the same period he was condemned and had 1 billion dollars deducted from his frozen accounts).

Part and parcel of this fine was the fact that when prime minister he had reduced the duty payable to CAT and TOT(the National carriers)

set at 25% for mobile phone bills paid monthly in arrears to 20% for the new Pay as you go rates that enabled the poor to own phones.

Increased revenues followed substantially and additionally his government demanded that the fees were paid diredtly to government as excise duty and the part privatised TOT and CAT received in return due owed to them from the government as there was a problem with leakage of funds owed to government.

This reply reminds me of the saying about the fool and the wise men.

k. Thaksin's crime (or the only case which could proceed because he was still here) is none of what you write. He's not convicted because his wife bought some land, he's not convicted because he was married to the wife (at that time), he was not convicted because he was the PM. He was convicted because he had violated a conflict-of-interest law while in office and was sentenced to two years in prison.

The rest of the post is equally incorrect, but I'm not going to bother with finding all the details to correct a post which might have taken a foolmember two minites to write down.

Have fun and try a bit harder to stick to the truth.

Hey, at least he didn't accept a small gratuity for appearing on a television cooking program.

They don't like it up 'em.

The "conflict of interest" was an invention of the Assets Scrutiny Committee and they had to repeatedly try and eventually succeed to get the FDIF or is it the FIDF (subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand, handling assets from the 1997 collapse and which is NOT a government department) to finally aggree over the conflict of interest. Pressure was brought to bear.

By the way noone is interested in what became of the land and I am here to tell you that it was sold on to a developer for a lower overall price than Thaksin's wife had paid.

Interesting huh?

[rubl]

Answer to Bucholz ( can't figure out all the quotes , endquotes etc to post and gave up).

Just go to Wikipedia then and check your facts.

Thaksin's lawyers were never charged.

quote from (Not) the Nation:

"According to a report by the Nation news website, Supreme Court Vice President Mongkol Thapthiang, who heads a panel investigating the case, said the panel found the three guilty of the bribery charge by handing the pastry box containing two million baht (some61,000 U.S. dollars) in cash to a court official when they appeared on June 10, representing Thaksin and his wife Pojaman, at the court to report that the couple had returned from a business trip overseas. "

The same paper that broke the story.

Now one of the lawyers is a Pheu Thai MP. Is that possible if he has served a prison sentence?

You should check out Wikipedia and do some cross referencing. You may find that what is reported there does not tally with what is reported here in the english language newspapers.

As for the airport the general who took over the airport after the coup firstly he sacked all the directors and secondly he seized around 6 million dollars to give to his buddies in his regiment and thirdly when cracks appeared in the runway (built with the correct materials) he refused to repair it as he wished to blame Thaksin for any future failure.

Every day I see Jonathan Head reporting from Turkey on the syrian crisis.

We were told here when he was the BBC reporter for Thailand that Thaksin had bought him and he lleft here with 2 LM charges against his name so he cannot return.

"Lead lawyer Pichit Chuenban, legal assistant Supasri Srisawat and the coordinator of the legal team Thana Tansiri were found guilty by a panel of three judges of contempt of court in the precincts of the court.Each was given a six-month jail term.The trio also face criminal charges under Article 144 of the Criminal Code.The panel chaired by Supreme Court vice-president Mongkol Thapthiang suspects they were trying to give a bribe and has assigned the court secretary to lodge a police complaint."

K. Pichit Chuenban was a senatorial candidate in 2006 but not elected. He was put on the Pheu Thai party list in 2011 and since the 2011 elections an MP for Pheu Thai. Not sure if k. Pichit is still a lawyer, he was under investigation by the Law Society of Thailand for his role in the lunchbox affair.

As for the allegations regarding the General, please provide a few clear links or PM.

Remember the truth will set you free !

Edited April 13, 2012 by rubl

[jayboy]

Dear visionchaser, suggest you carefully reread some Thai history, especially the last 10 to 12 years.

Always interested to hear of recommendations for recent Thai history.Could you kindly refer me to the most authoritative volume that one can place reliance on.

[Babcock]

Answer to Bucholz ( can't figure out all the quotes , endquotes etc to post and gave up).

Just go to Wikipedia then and check your facts.

Thaksin's lawyers were never charged.

quote from (Not) the Nation:

"According to a report by the Nation news website, Supreme Court Vice President Mongkol Thapthiang, who heads a panel investigating the case, said the panel found the three guilty of the bribery charge by handing the pastry box containing two million baht (some61,000 U.S. dollars) in cash to a court official when they appeared on June 10, representing Thaksin and his wife Pojaman, at the court to report that the couple had returned from a business trip overseas. "

The same paper that broke the story.

Now one of the lawyers is a Pheu Thai MP. Is that possible if he has served a prison sentence?

You should check out Wikipedia and do some cross referencing. You may find that what is reported there does not tally with what is reported here in the english language newspapers.

As for the airport the general who took over the airport after the coup firstly he sacked all the directors and secondly he seized around 6 million dollars to give to his buddies in his regiment and thirdly when cracks appeared in the runway (built with the correct materials) he refused to repair it as he wished to blame Thaksin for any future failure.

Every day I see Jonathan Head reporting from Turkey on the syrian crisis.

We were told here when he was the BBC reporter for Thailand that Thaksin had bought him and he lleft here with 2 LM charges against his name so he cannot return.

"Lead lawyer Pichit Chuenban, legal assistant Supasri Srisawat and the coordinator of the legal team Thana Tansiri were found guilty by a panel of three judges of contempt of court in the precincts of the court.Each was given a six-month jail term.The trio also face criminal charges under Article 144 of the Criminal Code.The panel chaired by Supreme Court vice-president Mongkol Thapthiang suspects they were trying to give a bribe and has assigned the court secretary to lodge a police complaint."

K. Pichit Chuenban was a senatorial candidate in 2006 but not elected. He was put on the Pheu Thai party list in 2011 and since the 2011 elections an MP for Pheu Thai. Not sure if k. Pichit is still a lawyer, he was under investigation by the Law Society of Thailand for his role in the lunchbox affair.

As for the allegations regarding the General, please provide a few clear links or PM.

Remember the truth will set you free !

I told you.

Go check Wikipedia if you dare!

[rubl]

This reply reminds me of the saying about the fool and the wise men.

k. Thaksin's crime (or the only case which could proceed because he was still here) is none of what you write. He's not convicted because his wife bought some land, he's not convicted because he was married to the wife (at that time), he was not convicted because he was the PM. He was convicted because he had violated a conflict-of-interest law while in office and was sentenced to two years in prison.

The rest of the post is equally incorrect, but I'm not going to bother with finding all the details to correct a post which might have taken a foolmember two minites to write down.

Have fun and try a bit harder to stick to the truth.

Hey, at least he didn't accept a small gratuity for appearing on a television cooking program.

They don't like it up 'em.

The "conflict of interest" was an invention of the Assets Scrutiny Committee and they had to repeatedly try and eventually succeed to get the FDIF or is it the FIDF (subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand, handling assets from the 1997 collapse and which is NOT a government department) to finally aggree over the conflict of interest. Pressure was brought to bear.

By the way noone is interested in what became of the land and I am here to tell you that it was sold on to a developer for a lower overall price than Thaksin's wife had paid.

Interesting huh?

Whatever happened to the land is immaterial to the case against k. Thaksin. Nice try though.

[whybother]

Yeah, it's not like the coup that started this whole mess was legal. If Thailand wants to be a nation of laws, it should turn back the clock, bring Thaksin back as prime minister and forgo future coups. If he was a bad guy, he should have been removed through legal process. People who supported the coup (Abhisit, for example) have no room to complain.

This whole mess started well before the coup.

Sure, but when do you finally decide to start following the law? After you unlawfully get things they way you want them? Thaksin pulled some shit that seems pretty far outside the law to me. But had there been a concerted effort to deal with those problems with the framework of the law, Thailand would have been better for it. If coups are an acceptable fix, then Thailand should simply dispense with domocratic ideals altogether and go back to an absolute monarchy.

It's difficult to deal with problems within the framework of the law when someone has relatives and cronies placed in strategic areas.

[whybother]

They don't like it up 'em.

The "conflict of interest" was an invention of the Assets Scrutiny Committee and they had to repeatedly try and eventually succeed to get the FDIF or is it the FIDF (subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand, handling assets from the 1997 collapse and which is NOT a government department) to finally aggree over the conflict of interest. Pressure was brought to bear.

By the way noone is interested in what became of the land and I am here to tell you that it was sold on to a developer for a lower overall price than Thaksin's wife had paid.

Interesting huh?

If the FIDF was not under the control of the government, why were the government paying interest on FIDF debts, and why did they recently transfer that debt over to the BOT?

[Babcock]

They don't like it up 'em.

The "conflict of interest" was an invention of the Assets Scrutiny Committee and they had to repeatedly try and eventually succeed to get the FDIF or is it the FIDF (subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand, handling assets from the 1997 collapse and which is NOT a government department) to finally aggree over the conflict of interest. Pressure was brought to bear.

By the way noone is interested in what became of the land and I am here to tell you that it was sold on to a developer for a lower overall price than Thaksin's wife had paid.

Interesting huh?

If the FIDF was not under the control of the government, why were the government paying interest on FIDF debts, and why did they recently transfer that debt over to the BOT?

That's right!

That's why they did it. Why should a government be paying the interest when the bank has no real incentive to clear the debt? They can sell assets off at a loss.

The same applies in the UK with the bank of england notionally being independant but the finance minister in Thailand (chancellor) can order/instruct the Bank to for example make ready to try to devalue the baht.

Unlikely to be successful really but in this case the government here has sought ways to increase its credit rating so it could borrow to pay for the flood damage.

[tlansford]

Dear visionchaser, suggest you carefully reread some Thai history, especially the last 10 to 12 years.

Always interested to hear of recommendations for recent Thai history.Could you kindly refer me to the most authoritative volume that one can place reliance on.

TVF

[whybother]

They don't like it up 'em.

The "conflict of interest" was an invention of the Assets Scrutiny Committee and they had to repeatedly try and eventually succeed to get the FDIF or is it the FIDF (subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand, handling assets from the 1997 collapse and which is NOT a government department) to finally aggree over the conflict of interest. Pressure was brought to bear.

By the way noone is interested in what became of the land and I am here to tell you that it was sold on to a developer for a lower overall price than Thaksin's wife had paid.

Interesting huh?

If the FIDF was not under the control of the government, why were the government paying interest on FIDF debts, and why did they recently transfer that debt over to the BOT?

That's right!

That's why they did it. Why should a government be paying the interest when the bank has no real incentive to clear the debt? They can sell assets off at a loss.

The same applies in the UK with the bank of england notionally being independant but the finance minister in Thailand (chancellor) can order/instruct the Bank to for example make ready to try to devalue the baht.

Unlikely to be successful really but in this case the government here has sought ways to increase its credit rating so it could borrow to pay for the flood damage.

So the FIDF WAS under government control.

btw, I don't think it would (or did) make any difference to the credit rating. The debt is still effectively owed by the government/country.

[Babcock]

They don't like it up 'em.

The "conflict of interest" was an invention of the Assets Scrutiny Committee and they had to repeatedly try and eventually succeed to get the FDIF or is it the FIDF (subsidiary of the Bank of Thailand, handling assets from the 1997 collapse and which is NOT a government department) to finally aggree over the conflict of interest. Pressure was brought to bear.

By the way noone is interested in what became of the land and I am here to tell you that it was sold on to a developer for a lower overall price than Thaksin's wife had paid.

Interesting huh?

If the FIDF was not under the control of the government, why were the government paying interest on FIDF debts, and why did they recently transfer that debt over to the BOT?

That's right!

That's why they did it. Why should a government be paying the interest when the bank has no real incentive to clear the debt? They can sell assets off at a loss.

The same applies in the UK with the bank of england notionally being independant but the finance minister in Thailand (chancellor) can order/instruct the Bank to for example make ready to try to devalue the baht.

Unlikely to be successful really but in this case the government here has sought ways to increase its credit rating so it could borrow to pay for the flood damage.

So the FIDF WAS under government control.

btw, I don't think it would (or did) make any difference to the credit rating. The debt is still effectively owed by the government/country.

No it's not. When push comes to shove then the finance minister can effectively order the bank but..

An analogy would be a competition on your Corn Flake package where employees of the Cornflake company cannot compete.

So Thaksin's wife could buy land in an auction as she didn't work for the bank nor did Thaksin who as her husband under thai law (as women have no official legal right to own property in Thailand) had to co-sign.

His lawyers checked it out at the time. She had declared wealth on Thaksin's appointment as PM of 1 billion baht.

She paid 775 million baht and the land had been valued for the FIDF at 750 million baht.