whybother Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Who did they take power from? Your pet cat Oscar? Not from a democratically elected PM. There wasn't an elected PM at the time of the coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Interim Prime Minister okay but thats because the democrats boycotted the elections that year. Anything to upset the status Quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Off topic posts and replies have been removed. Insults and baiting posts have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I am pretty sure that you are aware that he and his wife did everything in the open and did not try to hide that he was the PM . It seems clear so far that they checked the laws and determined that there was not a conflict of interest, eg: confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. At the time of the purchase, given the circumstances stated above, it is very hard to imagine how Thaksin and his wife could have thought they were violating a law at the technical level, much less how it could be that paying the high-bid in an open, transparent, auction where the high bid could be refused if too low, etc, could be construed as an abuse of power. Where is the abuse of power in that? Where is the corruption in that? And his defence? "It was an honest mistake!" He thought he could get away with it. He didn't. Anyone charged with tax evasion could use the excuse that they did it in the open and their lawyers said it should be OK. How the bidding was done is irrelevant. Thaksin and his wife shouldn't have been involved in it. The first statement are your words, not mine. That last statement is your opinion. But you fail to state how this is abuse of power or corruption - the "crime" for which he has been convicted. It is not even clear that he really broke any law at all - which is why *some* people consider it a "political" conviction. So tell me again, I didn't hear it the first time - how is this "corruption" ? Where is the "crime" ? Open auction, transparent, three bids, highest bid, auction has right to decline, FIDF followed the correct process, FIDF not under PM office / control, etc, etc, etc, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewlyMintedThai Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) I am pretty sure that you are aware that he and his wife did everything in the open and did not try to hide that he was the PM . It seems clear so far that they checked the laws and determined that there was not a conflict of interest, eg: confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. At the time of the purchase, given the circumstances stated above, it is very hard to imagine how Thaksin and his wife could have thought they were violating a law at the technical level, much less how it could be that paying the high-bid in an open, transparent, auction where the high bid could be refused if too low, etc, could be construed as an abuse of power. Where is the abuse of power in that? Where is the corruption in that? And his defence? "It was an honest mistake!" He thought he could get away with it. He didn't. Anyone charged with tax evasion could use the excuse that they did it in the open and their lawyers said it should be OK. How the bidding was done is irrelevant. Thaksin and his wife shouldn't have been involved in it. The first statement are your words, not mine. That last statement is your opinion. But you fail to state how this is abuse of power or corruption - the "crime" for which he has been convicted. It is not even clear that he really broke any law at all - which is why *some* people consider it a "political" conviction. So tell me again, I didn't hear it the first time - how is this "corruption" ? Where is the "crime" ? Open auction, transparent, three bids, highest bid, auction has right to decline, FIDF followed the correct process, FIDF not under PM office / control, etc, etc, etc, ... Evidence was heard in Court, and the accused didn't bother to show up to defend himself. He was therefore convicted. He had a chance to appeal. He didn't bother. This trumps the argument of any armchair legal eagles, don't you think? Edited April 17, 2012 by NewlyMintedThai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeddyFlyfisherDavis Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Did anyone get to see and hear this POS sing the Beatles song "Let It Be"...? I was ROLLING it was so hilarious...He should be locked up for abuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I am pretty sure that you are aware that he and his wife did everything in the open and did not try to hide that he was the PM . It seems clear so far that they checked the laws and determined that there was not a conflict of interest, eg: confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. At the time of the purchase, given the circumstances stated above, it is very hard to imagine how Thaksin and his wife could have thought they were violating a law at the technical level, much less how it could be that paying the high-bid in an open, transparent, auction where the high bid could be refused if too low, etc, could be construed as an abuse of power. Where is the abuse of power in that? Where is the corruption in that? And his defence? "It was an honest mistake!" He thought he could get away with it. He didn't. Anyone charged with tax evasion could use the excuse that they did it in the open and their lawyers said it should be OK. How the bidding was done is irrelevant. Thaksin and his wife shouldn't have been involved in it. The first statement are your words, not mine. That last statement is your opinion. But you fail to state how this is abuse of power or corruption - the "crime" for which he has been convicted. It is not even clear that he really broke any law at all - which is why *some* people consider it a "political" conviction. So tell me again, I didn't hear it the first time - how is this "corruption" ? Where is the "crime" ? Open auction, transparent, three bids, highest bid, auction has right to decline, FIDF followed the correct process, FIDF not under PM office / control, etc, etc, etc, ... The last statement is the courts opinion. According to the laws, he shouldn't have been involved in financial transactions involving government departments. The FIDF wasn't under control of the PM office, but it was under indirect control of the PM and the government. It is irrelevant how it was bought because he wasn't allowed to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The first statement are your words, not mine. That last statement is your opinion. But you fail to state how this is abuse of power or corruption - the "crime" for which he has been convicted. It is not even clear that he really broke any law at all - which is why *some* people consider it a "political" conviction. So tell me again, I didn't hear it the first time - how is this "corruption" ? Where is the "crime" ? Open auction, transparent, three bids, highest bid, auction has right to decline, FIDF followed the correct process, FIDF not under PM office / control, etc, etc, etc, ... Evidence was heard in Court, and the accused didn't bother to show up to defend himself. He was therefore convicted. He had a chance to appeal. He didn't bother. This trumps the argument of any armchair legal eagles, don't you think? Now now, you make Thaksin look like a loafer, don't forget that he took the trouble of attempting to bribe the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewlyMintedThai Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The first statement are your words, not mine. That last statement is your opinion. But you fail to state how this is abuse of power or corruption - the "crime" for which he has been convicted. It is not even clear that he really broke any law at all - which is why *some* people consider it a "political" conviction. So tell me again, I didn't hear it the first time - how is this "corruption" ? Where is the "crime" ? Open auction, transparent, three bids, highest bid, auction has right to decline, FIDF followed the correct process, FIDF not under PM office / control, etc, etc, etc, ... Evidence was heard in Court, and the accused didn't bother to show up to defend himself. He was therefore convicted. He had a chance to appeal. He didn't bother. This trumps the argument of any armchair legal eagles, don't you think? Now now, you make Thaksin look like a loafer, don't forget that he took the trouble of attempting to bribe the court. Oh, yes -- how could one forget the "cake box". And his supporters have the chutzpah to whinge about "fair trials"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The Thais, that is the majority of Thais have already decided and always believed in Thaksin. Why do you think his sister is PM, because the majority voted for her because of who she is the sister of. The sad fact is that the country is split between the majority (the poor Thai people) and the minority ( the power hungry rich elite) who think that the poor are their servants and incapable of voting because they believe they are uneducated buffalos. Absolute twaddle, I know plenty of Red Shirts who understand very well just what a self serving scumbag Thaksin really is. They still vote for PTP becuase they really hate the Dems and the Hi So's, who they know will not do anything for them. It's very much a case of which bunch of thieving scumbags do you want to vote for. For most they know that the Big T has given them something, 30 baht health care, housing whereas historically the Dems did nothing. I understand why people vote for PTP but to claim that they all want Thaksin back is complete rubbish. The 30 Bath health care became the 0 Baht scheme under the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I still think a re-trial would be the best solution for reconciliation or to have his sentence reduced to a fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I still think a re-trial would be the best solution for reconciliation or to have his sentence reduced to a fine. Why make him pay a fine ..... he should be compensated for all the inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimay11 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I still think a re-trial would be the best solution for reconciliation or to have his sentence reduced to a fine. Right, maybe 100 Baht. This makes as much sense as your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimay11 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 A long self exiled, popular leader, Thaksin would come back tomorrow if the democrat party agreed to reconcile but they don't. They're using the Thaksin returning issue as a bargaining chip, because they know if Thaksin returns they haven't got a chance of re-election in the next general election. Oh and what are they bargaining for, well to stay out of jail for crimes of ordering the shooting of red shirts two years ago. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 OK, several replies and not one person can say how it was abuse of power or corruption. point noted... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I still think a re-trial would be the best solution for reconciliation or to have his sentence reduced to a fine. Let's use the Swedish (?) model where fines are proportional to a person's nett worth. This stops small fines allowing richer persons to be scofflaws. 20% should be fair. How much do you think is right for his terrorism charge, for the insurrection he funded? Give me the price of a human life, multiply it by 93. Better make it big, or someone might make an offer for yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 OK, several replies and not one person can say how it was abuse of power or corruption. point noted... Why should anyone stoop to justify a long-existing Thai law? It was there, he or his advisers should have known of it (ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse), but he and his wife broke that law because they thought that they could avoid the consequences. tough TIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 You guys are beautiful, you shifted the status of hatred for Thaksin from fugitive to terrorist. Whats after terrorist? Fear tactics being used on a Thai forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewlyMintedThai Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 You guys are beautiful, you shifted the status of hatred for Thaksin from fugitive to terrorist. Whats after terrorist? Fear tactics being used on a Thai forum. I'm still on fugitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Nelson Mandela was a fugitive once, look what happened there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NewlyMintedThai Posted April 17, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted April 17, 2012 Nelson Mandela was a fugitive once, look what happened there. Dear God...please tell me that someone didn't just compare Thaksin to Nelson Mandela. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Nelson Mandela was a fugitive once, look what happened there. Dear God...please tell me that someone didn't just compare Thaksin to Nelson Mandela. By now I'm pretty sure this is a trolling act. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewlyMintedThai Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Nelson Mandela was a fugitive once, look what happened there. Dear God...please tell me that someone didn't just compare Thaksin to Nelson Mandela. By now I'm pretty sure this is a trolling act. Agreed...and with that I will cease to feed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tukkytuktuk Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Better than comparing him to Robert Mogabe or Pol Pot. I would say Thaksin is not comparable with any one and his style of politics is unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) OK, several replies and not one person can say how it was abuse of power or corruption. point noted... You mean apart from breaking the law that expressly forbade government officials of their families from being involved personally in business transactions involving the government? Well as much as I'd like to see a resolution of the Thaksin problem so the country can get back to normal our hero hasn't exactly helped the situation has he? By lying about his assets, his blatant tax avoidance, his Shin deal with Burmese military junta paid for by the Thai people, attempting to bribe judges, going on the run, a list just goes on it means even if he went back to court he is virtually undefendable. Edited April 17, 2012 by bigbamboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 "Too soon to come back" might be interpreted as "not soon enough to come back". All of a sudden hodes of Pheu Thai MP's, government officials and the like start to 'push' for reconciliation, amnesty, 'no need for dialogue', 'let's do it now'. One gets somehow the impression that the "Thaksin travelling show" over Songkhran was somewhat less of a success as some expected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 You guys are beautiful, you shifted the status of hatred for Thaksin from fugitive to terrorist. Whats after terrorist? Fear tactics being used on a Thai forum. This lot are quite capable of painting him as Bin Laden or Hitler reincarnate.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 OK, several replies and not one person can say how it was abuse of power or corruption. point noted... You mean apart from breaking the law that expressly forbade government officials of their families from being involved personally in business transactions involving the government? Well as much as I'd like to see a resolution of the Thaksin problem so the country can get back to normal our hero hasn't exactly helped the situation has he? By lying about his assets, his blatant tax avoidance, his Shin deal with Burmese military junta paid for by the Thai people, attempting to bribe judges, going on the run, a list just goes on it means even if he went back to court he is virtually undefendable. Your opening sentence. Which law was that then ??? Care to cite it it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 OK, several replies and not one person can say how it was abuse of power or corruption. point noted... Why should anyone stoop to justify a long-existing Thai law? It was there, he or his advisers should have known of it (ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse), but he and his wife broke that law because they thought that they could avoid the consequences. tough TIT. "anyone" should perhaps do their homework to justify why they call Thaksin a criminal and tout the fact that he is a fugitive from "justice" for "abuse of power" due to this particular conviction which all you guys have. "ignorance" of the law is not being pushed here by anyone except you. It looks like Thaksin and his wife did their homework and determined that what looked legal was legal. The FIDF committee itself had to approve each potential bidder before the auction. In addition, prior to signing, it was confirmed that the office of the Prime Minister is neither the office in charge of, nor has the authority to direct or supervise the FIDF. I mentioned this earlier, perhaps you missed it. So no, ignorance of the law was not the case as you implied. It was checked before the signature. Everything was - at the time - done according to the law. The 5/4 conviction ruling 5 years later is the only ruling that says what he did was illegal. And signing his name as spousal consent as required by Thai law for ones wife to pay the highest bidding price in an open, public auction really, really really doesn't sound like abuse of power to me. Especially since it was verified beforehand. But no one has stepped forward to say why this is abuse of power... OK, point well taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 OK, several replies and not one person can say how it was abuse of power or corruption. point noted... You mean apart from breaking the law that expressly forbade government officials of their families from being involved personally in business transactions involving the government? Well as much as I'd like to see a resolution of the Thaksin problem so the country can get back to normal our hero hasn't exactly helped the situation has he? By lying about his assets, his blatant tax avoidance, his Shin deal with Burmese military junta paid for by the Thai people, attempting to bribe judges, going on the run, a list just goes on it means even if he went back to court he is virtually undefendable. You misunderstand this government's position. They wish to have all charges and verdicts quashed, then to be re-investigated and retried. Of course, due to missing evidence and a very liberal and friendly view of offence, no charges will be laid, and no defence necessary. Look at the Yingluk perjury case. The totally independent DSI has decided that lying in court is not perjury as long as you are not the defendant - beyond common logic, and quite different to the opinion of a judge IMO, BUT WE WILL NEVER KNOW, because a case won't be brought before a judge. Thaksin's charges will face a similar fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now