Thailand's Constitution Court Puts Charter Changes On Hold

[tlansford]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

The land case was clear cut and no matter how you look at it, Thaksin knew his wife was buying land from a government agency, he admitted to signing it off himself many times, and this act is and was against the law regardless of the coup.

The coup allowed the case to be investigated and put before the court, that is true, but, equally, under Thaksin that was impossible as the government was in control of each and every step of this process and no one could dare to prosecute a sitting Prime Minister.

This is what the reconciliation bill counts on - although the proponents say Thaksin should be retried, the reality is that this case will never be picked up neither by investigators nor by prosecutors and will never reach the court.

Once in the court, however, the result will always be the same - the Prime Minister can't have his wife buying land from a government agency.

What you argue here is the matter of legalities and not justice.

There's also the case of 46 billion. You can argue legalities, okay, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone that Thaksin was helping out his company, I don't know of anyone who would believe Thaksin had totally separated his business and his governance.

I mean he still refers to it as HIS money - what other proof do you need? The man himself broadcasts that he lost his 46 billion invested in a company, which is illegal for a sitting PM. How else would you expect the court to rule on this any differently? Deny accused's own admission of guilt?

Again, the plan is to overturn the court ruling and make sure the case never gets to the trial again.

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

yep - open and shut, for sure...

[OzMick]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

The land case was clear cut and no matter how you look at it, Thaksin knew his wife was buying land from a government agency, he admitted to signing it off himself many times, and this act is and was against the law regardless of the coup.

The coup allowed the case to be investigated and put before the court, that is true, but, equally, under Thaksin that was impossible as the government was in control of each and every step of this process and no one could dare to prosecute a sitting Prime Minister.

This is what the reconciliation bill counts on - although the proponents say Thaksin should be retried, the reality is that this case will never be picked up neither by investigators nor by prosecutors and will never reach the court.

Once in the court, however, the result will always be the same - the Prime Minister can't have his wife buying land from a government agency.

What you argue here is the matter of legalities and not justice.

There's also the case of 46 billion. You can argue legalities, okay, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone that Thaksin was helping out his company, I don't know of anyone who would believe Thaksin had totally separated his business and his governance.

I mean he still refers to it as HIS money - what other proof do you need? The man himself broadcasts that he lost his 46 billion invested in a company, which is illegal for a sitting PM. How else would you expect the court to rule on this any differently? Deny accused's own admission of guilt?

Again, the plan is to overturn the court ruling and make sure the case never gets to the trial again.

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

yep - open and shut, for sure...

You can defend his conviction until you're blue in the face, but can't spare a word about the validity of the other charges he faces which will also be wiped by his "amnesty bill" as you so accurately described it? The seized funds were due to a number of corrupt dealings in office, understandably harder to defend.

[thaicbr]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

The land case was clear cut and no matter how you look at it, Thaksin knew his wife was buying land from a government agency, he admitted to signing it off himself many times, and this act is and was against the law regardless of the coup.

The coup allowed the case to be investigated and put before the court, that is true, but, equally, under Thaksin that was impossible as the government was in control of each and every step of this process and no one could dare to prosecute a sitting Prime Minister.

This is what the reconciliation bill counts on - although the proponents say Thaksin should be retried, the reality is that this case will never be picked up neither by investigators nor by prosecutors and will never reach the court.

Once in the court, however, the result will always be the same - the Prime Minister can't have his wife buying land from a government agency.

What you argue here is the matter of legalities and not justice.

There's also the case of 46 billion. You can argue legalities, okay, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone that Thaksin was helping out his company, I don't know of anyone who would believe Thaksin had totally separated his business and his governance.

I mean he still refers to it as HIS money - what other proof do you need? The man himself broadcasts that he lost his 46 billion invested in a company, which is illegal for a sitting PM. How else would you expect the court to rule on this any differently? Deny accused's own admission of guilt?

Again, the plan is to overturn the court ruling and make sure the case never gets to the trial again.

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

yep - open and shut, for sure...

I wonder how many bidders there were and who they were. For all we know there may only have been one and that bid was just over the reserve.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[volk666]

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

This is how they voted:

9-0 – The 1999 anti-corruption act is effective.

9-0 – Appointment of Assets Examination Committee is constitutional with authority to investigate cases.

9-0 – Financial Institutions Development Fund, the land seller, is a government agency.

6-3 – The prime minister has oversight of FIDF.

5-4 – Thaksin Shinawatra violated the 1999 anti-corruption act.

7-2 – Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra is not guilty and her arrest warrant will be cancelled.

7-2 – The Ratchadaphisek land plot and transaction money will not be confiscated.

9-0 – Thaksin is sentenced to a two-year jail term.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

Apparently he didn't check it very thoroughly. What if he only checked the possibility of being prosecuted, which is not the same thing?

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

This has nothing to do with Thaksin's transgressions. Auction company wasn't on trial and Thaksin's wife wasn't convicted of anything.

[ThaiOats]

Has anyone taken the time to listen to the two rallies held by the Red Shirts and the Democrats? One spurs nonsense working upon the pathos instead of the logic and reason while the other lists a plethora of logic and reasons. The Democrats in their rally broke down the 4 reconciliation bills into laymen terms so that the people can understand what it's really about, including video clips of what the PTP government promised back in 2011 and what's happening now. All the 4 bills have pretty much the same clauses with Sonthi's version being the smoke screen, the 2nd and 3rd version being the back up and ultimately the 4th version by Nattawut having a special clause especially for Thaksin. This 'Reconciliation' Bill is meant to ERASE the wrong doings and crimes of people.

Instead of just giving amnesty to people who had the right to protest under the rule of law, it had extra clauses that includes people that murdered someone, committed arson, advocating violence, and so forth. Through this Reconciliation bill, all court verdicts will be nullified and anything that were politically motivated will be forgiven which tantamount to the fact that Law will be thrown out the window and whoever holds the most power will be able to get away with anything. Why is it that the PTP are so adamant on pushing a bill to erase wrong doings? Even if it were to apply to both the yellow shirts and the Democrats, why are they not voicing the same support for a get out of jail card? It's because the people who've committed the crimes are the ones who benefit most from it. The Democrats were willing to accept whatever tarnished image the public may have of them that may have resulted from their conduct in Parliament but they believed it was justified. There's no military coup planned. The PAD have stayed quiet until the last few attempt to amend the constitution including the Les Majeste and the recent controversial Reconciliation bill. The Democrats explained exactly why Yingluck is playing the "I don't know" card and he predicted the true intentions of this government back in 2011 right after the election.

In regards to Thaksin's case over his assets, he claimed that he was already rich prior to him being a politician. That's utter BS, they did an audit and found he was worth much less so either he was HIDING his assets or the fact that he increased his wealth by mammoth proportions after he became a politician. He also claimed that the ASC fabricated the case against him and that it was foul play. To remind some of you, Thaksin was well aware that there was a case against him but why did he decide to come back to Thailand in 2008 to fight in court if he already concluded that he was going to lose due to bias? Then comes the moment where there was that really expensive dessert for 2 million baht which conveniently happened to drop in the court. He was trying to bribe his way out of his crimes. Also, the case on him being unusually wealthy started even before the military coup, so how was it that the junta installed committee fabricated the story?

Abhisit also mentions that the Constitutional Court asked to review the bill, not totally deal away with it. Isn't it justified for the Court which defends the Constitution to be able to look into matters which may prove to be unconstitutional? It's just a delay! But no, the PTP and Red-shirts are now inciting violence and propaganda that there may be a military coup. And I love how Abhisit calls out to Yingluck that "as the Prime Minister, it is your duty to sign the bill if you're adamant about it's constitutionality and that its content will be for reconciliation. You must take responsibility."

Go to Abhisit's homepage on Facebook and listen to the rally. It's insightful and you can make your own judgement on whether or not they're doing it for their sakes.

Edited June 4, 2012 by ThaiOats

[Moruya]

But Thaksin has only been convicted of one trumped up charge and that is why the rest of the world refuses to help Thailand!

You lot really can't understand that Thaksins only real crime, in the Thai scheme of things, was to remove power from Bangkok and this is still the only reason whilst he is still being shouted about from every elitist orifice available. Ladies and gentlemen you have been conned because of you lack of understanding of Thai politics and have a general lack of intelligence: I know it but you don't! That makes me far superior and intelligent

If you shout something often enough and loud enough there will be people who believe you but those capable of independent, rational, and critical thought will not fall for it!

The bill before parlaiment is to set up a committiee to consider constitutional changes only.

I fail to see any reason whatsoever why the court should be involved or even accept anything for consideration until a royal assent has been signed.

The misinformation being spread is all to do with the government accepting an academic report the Democrats(sic) did not like: at present the democrats and yellows are protected by the courts so they do not want the scrapping of all political charges. Put the ones that deserve to be in prison away and their stance will almost certainly change.

We are a long long way away from anything being passed into law and I suspect there will be a public referendum on any constitutional changes.

The only reason he was found guilty of 1 charge is that he ran away. Took the coward's option after promising to respect the verdict

Sent from my dog.

only a fool would believe that!

Only a fool would believe otherwise

Sent from my dog.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

The land case was clear cut and no matter how you look at it, Thaksin knew his wife was buying land from a government agency, he admitted to signing it off himself many times, and this act is and was against the law regardless of the coup.

The coup allowed the case to be investigated and put before the court, that is true, but, equally, under Thaksin that was impossible as the government was in control of each and every step of this process and no one could dare to prosecute a sitting Prime Minister.

This is what the reconciliation bill counts on - although the proponents say Thaksin should be retried, the reality is that this case will never be picked up neither by investigators nor by prosecutors and will never reach the court.

Once in the court, however, the result will always be the same - the Prime Minister can't have his wife buying land from a government agency.

What you argue here is the matter of legalities and not justice.

There's also the case of 46 billion. You can argue legalities, okay, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone that Thaksin was helping out his company, I don't know of anyone who would believe Thaksin had totally separated his business and his governance.

I mean he still refers to it as HIS money - what other proof do you need? The man himself broadcasts that he lost his 46 billion invested in a company, which is illegal for a sitting PM. How else would you expect the court to rule on this any differently? Deny accused's own admission of guilt?

Again, the plan is to overturn the court ruling and make sure the case never gets to the trial again.

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

yep - open and shut, for sure...

I wonder how many bidders there were and who they were. For all we know there may only have been one and that bid was just over the reserve.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

3 bidders. Auction company had the right to not sell to the highest bidder. But this has been posted here before and is pretty straight forward to google.

[tlansford]

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

This is how they voted:

9-0 – The 1999 anti-corruption act is effective.

9-0 – Appointment of Assets Examination Committee is constitutional with authority to investigate cases.

9-0 – Financial Institutions Development Fund, the land seller, is a government agency.

6-3 – The prime minister has oversight of FIDF.

5-4 – Thaksin Shinawatra violated the 1999 anti-corruption act.

7-2 – Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra is not guilty and her arrest warrant will be cancelled.

7-2 – The Ratchadaphisek land plot and transaction money will not be confiscated.

9-0 – Thaksin is sentenced to a two-year jail term.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

Apparently he didn't check it very thoroughly. What if he only checked the possibility of being prosecuted, which is not the same thing?

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

This has nothing to do with Thaksin's transgressions. Auction company wasn't on trial and Thaksin's wife wasn't convicted of anything.

and, ... ?

So you agree that he was convicted 5-4. The rest, that it was an open auction, that the law was checked before the auction, that the auction company verified its part as well, you simple dismiss.

Not to mention he was investigated by a junta (reminder note: they are the ones who executed the military coup and overthrew the gov't...) appointed commission and convicted by a junta appointed supreme court... but of course, it was not a political conviction.

I don't have any interest in defending Thaksin, but I recognize the obvious lies about his conviction spread willfully here.

On the other hand, you just want to believe what you already believe, therefore there is no discussion...

Good bye.

[OzMick]

and, ... ?

So you agree that he was convicted 5-4. The rest, that it was an open auction, that the law was checked before the auction, that the auction company verified its part as well, you simple dismiss.

Not to mention he was investigated by a junta (reminder note: they are the ones who executed the military coup and overthrew the gov't...) appointed commission and convicted by a junta appointed supreme court... but of course, it was not a political conviction.

I don't have any interest in defending Thaksin, but I recognize the obvious lies about his conviction spread willfully here.

On the other hand, you just want to believe what you already believe, therefore there is no discussion...

Good bye.

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

Edited June 5, 2012 by OzMick

[AleG]

As per usual the users of this forum are showing that htey have very little idea about politics and law.

What we have here is a court telling parliament what it can and cannot discuss. Anything still in the parliamentary process is not a law and thereby still subject to change! In this respect it is not the business of the constitutional court. Once a law is passed by parliament the constitutional court can rule on its legality and as we are not at that stage I will ask what business is it of the constitutional court?

The constitutional court has no rights whatsoever to tell parlaiment what it can and cannot discuss and legislate for.

What we have here is a proactive strike by people given power by the coup. Part of the bill currently reads that all agencies etc bought into being by the coup be abolished. This is blatent self interest/ self preservation and in itself should set alarm bells ringing.

...

So...

1) The Constitutional Court should wait until the legislation is passed.

2) The legislation dissolves the Constitutional Court.

Gee, I can't see anything wrong with that.

[AleG]

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

Many corporate criminals get away with a lot of crimes before they are caught, and are charged with the primary crime that they were caught with first, pending investigation into their other earlier affairs. Sadly when you have a criminal like Thaksin who is both PM and a nepotist what you have is a lot of his family members in a lot of high offices using a lot of paper-shredders on his behalf when needed. Nobody will ever know the depths of his crimes because he was surrounded in state and business by family and friends.

...

What also helps to no end is when witnesses against you end up being conveniently murdered.

[h90]

As per usual the users of this forum are showing that htey have very little idea about politics and law.

What we have here is a court telling parliament what it can and cannot discuss. Anything still in the parliamentary process is not a law and thereby still subject to change! In this respect it is not the business of the constitutional court. Once a law is passed by parliament the constitutional court can rule on its legality and as we are not at that stage I will ask what business is it of the constitutional court?

The constitutional court has no rights whatsoever to tell parlaiment what it can and cannot discuss and legislate for.

What we have here is a proactive strike by people given power by the coup. Part of the bill currently reads that all agencies etc bought into being by the coup be abolished. This is blatent self interest/ self preservation and in itself should set alarm bells ringing.

I myslef have no problem with Thaksin getting convicted if it is done fairly. When he was convicted the court discarded two previous rulings and made a retrospective ruling. This is why no country will assist in arresting Thaksin. Wait! you all scream the rest of the world does not understand Thailand! Perhaps not but the rest of the world understands institutional malfeasance extremely well. Whilst we have one political grouping remaining completely unchecked and not taken to account for anything illegal they have done we do not have equality or fairness in law. Until all are treated equally and fairly under the law there can be no peace or reconcilliation in Thailand. The longer the will of the people is usurped by non elected self interested groups the closer we move towards civil war!

I stopped reading at:

"As per usual the users of this forum are showing that htey have very little idea about politics and law.

What we have here is a court telling parliament what it can and cannot discuss."

As obviously you have very little idea about Thailand.

The court did not tell the parliament that it can't discuss anything.....

So I didn't read the rest of that posting.

[Bagwan]

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

If someone is accusing you of being some place you aren't, why be coy, why not just state where you are? Of course nobody is obligated to give this information, but it's hardly invading anyone's privacy to do so. Just can't see why you wouldn't be upfront.

It doesn't matter and it is not relevant to the discussion.

How about a thread where everbody can take a flying guess at your location? My thoughts are that you are somewhere between Gotham City and Hades. How about an on-line game of 20 questions so that we can narrow your location down? My question is 'do you wear your underpants over or under your tights'?

I'm beginning to think that the only way out of these ongoing bunfights between Governments and the Judiciary, and Reds and Yellows is for the UN to appoint an independent body to run Thailand for the next 20 or so years until Thais have acquired a more adult and mature mindset and the ability to create a true democracy and live by its tenets. This truly is a country of 14 year olds governed by 16 year olds - and this board is dominated by a collection of grumpy and argumentative old men with nothing better to do. Everybody needs to lighten up and I suggest that a thread discussing (yet again) the length of Uni girls skirts and the tightness of their shirts would bring this about.

[h90]

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

If someone is accusing you of being some place you aren't, why be coy, why not just state where you are? Of course nobody is obligated to give this information, but it's hardly invading anyone's privacy to do so. Just can't see why you wouldn't be upfront.

It doesn't matter and it is not relevant to the discussion.

How about a thread where everbody can take a flying guess at your location? My thoughts are that you are somewhere between Gotham City and Hades. How about an on-line game of 20 questions so that we can narrow your location down? My question is 'do you wear your underpants over or under your tights'?

I'm beginning to think that the only way out of these ongoing bunfights between Governments and the Judiciary, and Reds and Yellows is for the UN to appoint an independent body to run Thailand for the next 20 or so years until Thais have acquired a more adult and mature mindset and the ability to create a true democracy and live by its tenets. This truly is a country of 14 year olds governed by 16 year olds - and this board is dominated by a collection of grumpy and argumentative old men with nothing better to do. Everybody needs to lighten up and I suggest that a thread discussing (yet again) the length of Uni girls skirts and the tightness of their shirts would bring this about.

I have an easier solution: You change the elections to a popular vote system. You copy a working constitution from a other country and you change the court system to something like roman law system. Everything with vote buying will be punished hard, jail terms for these who buy, community work and large payments for these who sell.

Both loose their rights to vote for lifetime.

Change of constitution only with 66 % votes in parliament.

Problem fixed.

But in compare with other countries Thailand is not that bad....It does not attack other countries like some other pseudo democracies do.

[PaulBax]

But Thaksin has only been convicted of one trumped up charge and that is why the rest of the world refuses to help Thailand!

You lot really can't understand that Thaksins only real crime, in the Thai scheme of things, was to remove power from Bangkok and this is still the only reason whilst he is still being shouted about from every elitist orifice available. Ladies and gentlemen you have been conned because of you lack of understanding of Thai politics and have a general lack of intelligence: I know it but you don't! That makes me far superior and intelligent

If you shout something often enough and loud enough there will be people who believe you but those capable of independent, rational, and critical thought will not fall for it!

The bill before parlaiment is to set up a committiee to consider constitutional changes only.

I fail to see any reason whatsoever why the court should be involved or even accept anything for consideration until a royal assent has been signed.

The misinformation being spread is all to do with the government accepting an academic report the Democrats(sic) did not like: at present the democrats and yellows are protected by the courts so they do not want the scrapping of all political charges. Put the ones that deserve to be in prison away and their stance will almost certainly change.

We are a long long way away from anything being passed into law and I suspect there will be a public referendum on any constitutional changes.

The only reason he was found guilty of 1 charge is that he ran away. Took the coward's option after promising to respect the verdict

Sent from my dog.

only a fool would believe that!

Someone who spends so much time rewriting history to praise Thaksin shouldn't call other people fools.

why don't you show me where i praise Thaksin or rewrite history?

[PaulBax]

As per usual the users of this forum are showing that htey have very little idea about politics and law.

What we have here is a court telling parliament what it can and cannot discuss. Anything still in the parliamentary process is not a law and thereby still subject to change! In this respect it is not the business of the constitutional court. Once a law is passed by parliament the constitutional court can rule on its legality and as we are not at that stage I will ask what business is it of the constitutional court?

The constitutional court has no rights whatsoever to tell parlaiment what it can and cannot discuss and legislate for.

What we have here is a proactive strike by people given power by the coup. Part of the bill currently reads that all agencies etc bought into being by the coup be abolished. This is blatent self interest/ self preservation and in itself should set alarm bells ringing.

I myslef have no problem with Thaksin getting convicted if it is done fairly. When he was convicted the court discarded two previous rulings and made a retrospective ruling. This is why no country will assist in arresting Thaksin. Wait! you all scream the rest of the world does not understand Thailand! Perhaps not but the rest of the world understands institutional malfeasance extremely well. Whilst we have one political grouping remaining completely unchecked and not taken to account for anything illegal they have done we do not have equality or fairness in law. Until all are treated equally and fairly under the law there can be no peace or reconcilliation in Thailand. The longer the will of the people is usurped by non elected self interested groups the closer we move towards civil war!

I stopped reading at:

"As per usual the users of this forum are showing that htey have very little idea about politics and law.

What we have here is a court telling parliament what it can and cannot discuss."

As obviously you have very little idea about Thailand.

The court did not tell the parliament that it can't discuss anything.....

So I didn't read the rest of that posting.

so there is no order from the constitutional court telling parliament to cease work on the reconciliation bill? something that if is passed at a 3rd reading has to be sent to the constitutional court for a ruling on legality before it can be sent for royal assent!

[PaulBax]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

The land case was clear cut and no matter how you look at it, Thaksin knew his wife was buying land from a government agency, he admitted to signing it off himself many times, and this act is and was against the law regardless of the coup.

The coup allowed the case to be investigated and put before the court, that is true, but, equally, under Thaksin that was impossible as the government was in control of each and every step of this process and no one could dare to prosecute a sitting Prime Minister.

This is what the reconciliation bill counts on - although the proponents say Thaksin should be retried, the reality is that this case will never be picked up neither by investigators nor by prosecutors and will never reach the court.

Once in the court, however, the result will always be the same - the Prime Minister can't have his wife buying land from a government agency.

What you argue here is the matter of legalities and not justice.

There's also the case of 46 billion. You can argue legalities, okay, but it was blatantly obvious to anyone that Thaksin was helping out his company, I don't know of anyone who would believe Thaksin had totally separated his business and his governance.

I mean he still refers to it as HIS money - what other proof do you need? The man himself broadcasts that he lost his 46 billion invested in a company, which is illegal for a sitting PM. How else would you expect the court to rule on this any differently? Deny accused's own admission of guilt?

Again, the plan is to overturn the court ruling and make sure the case never gets to the trial again.

the land case is not a clear cut illegal act. First, the decision was 5-4 : 4 judges thought that he did not violate the law.

in addition, the PM apparently checked the details regarding the legality of the purchase and his signing before participating in the auction.

The auction company also verified that the participants were allowed to bid before the auction.

And then of course, it was an open auction and the PMs wife paid the highest bidding price.

yep - open and shut, for sure...

on top of that there were 2 constitutional court rulings from before Thaksin was in power stating that the agency was independent from government. But these were ignored and a retrospective ruling made!

[whybother]

on top of that there were 2 constitutional court rulings from before Thaksin was in power stating that the agency was independent from government. But these were ignored and a retrospective ruling made!

They were made in about 1990.

[volk666]

They were made in respect to government's financial obligations to cover FIDF's business decisions. When someone couldn't get paid by FIDF they wanted to sue the government. That's not the same as 9-0 ruling that FIDF is a government agency this time.

The rest, that it was an open auction, that the law was checked before the auction, that the auction company verified its part as well, you simple dismiss.

Because it has nothing to do with Thaksin breaking the law but makes a nice red herring.

he was investigated by a junta (reminder note: they are the ones who executed the military coup and overthrew the gov't...) appointed commission and convicted by a junta appointed supreme court...

I don't see how it affects investigation results - Thaksin allowed his wife to buy land in an auction from a government agency. Since then he admitted this many times himself, what else is left there to investigate? The facts have been established and admitted by the defendant.

I can only guess what dissenting opinions in 5-4 vote were and for what reasons, the same dissenting judges ruled 9-0 for a two-year jail term. Why don't you focus on that?

[PaulBax]

Because the only thing he actually did was to sign a paper giving his wife permission to spend her own money on buying some land for herself. Part of Thai law does not allow a partner to buy land without the others permission if married. A good reason not to get married in my opinion lol

[OzMick]

Because the only thing he actually did was to sign a paper giving his wife permission to spend her own money on buying some land for herself. Part of Thai law does not allow a partner to buy land without the others permission if married. A good reason not to get married in my opinion lol

Actually you are only looking at half the situation. Under Thai law, a married couple are the same legal entity, so in effect, Thaksin bought the land himself.

[rixalex]

Because the only thing he actually did was to sign a paper giving his wife permission to spend her own money on buying some land for herself. Part of Thai law does not allow a partner to buy land without the others permission if married. A good reason not to get married in my opinion lol

Husband and wife are connected by law and so whether it be the wife doing the buying, or the husband, regardless of who signed what, it makes little difference to the fact that this was state owned land being auctioned and to have the head of state involved in buying that land, directly or indirectly, very clearly creates a whole range of problems. This is why there is a law against it. Thaksin and his wife broke that law, and they have never tried to deny that. They did try however to bribe the judges into finding them not guilty. This was around the same time as they declared they trusted in the Thai judiciary and would respect whatever verdict they arrived at. And then he was found guilty....

These are the facts. Why anyone who is not in some capacity employed to do so, would waste a nanosecond of their lives offering any sort of a defence for this nonsense, is beyond my comprehension.

[Reasonableman]

Because the only thing he actually did was to sign a paper giving his wife permission to spend her own money on buying some land for herself. Part of Thai law does not allow a partner to buy land without the others permission if married. A good reason not to get married in my opinion lol

Actually you are only looking at half the situation. Under Thai law, a married couple are the same legal entity, so in effect, Thaksin bought the land himself.

Also sounds like a good reason to get a divorce. In fact, it is a traditional strategy to avert legal liability for repayment of a debt, for example.