Thailand's Thaksin Says Amnesty Key To Reconciliation

[exalll]

What he really means is "I should be forgiven". Will Taksin forgive those who have upset him? Not a chance.

[hellodolly]

..

He is on the run he broke his bail he is a fugitive .Is he prepared to forgive and forget ?

..

All Thaksin wants is to get back to getting his hands into the state coffers and to occupy the seat of power irrespective of how it is done and at what cost.

dam_n right siampolee ... He is on the run, broke his bail and is a fugitive.

And I truly believe that he is NOT ready to forgive and forget ... When he comes back first he wanna get back all those billions that he thinks belong to him. Second he will take "his" seat at the top of the government - and then all, each and everyone of those that was "against him" will be hunted for and put to jail or even worse.

So Thakins better stay in Dubai or havt the guts to come and serve his 2 years. Thailand isnt stable enough yet to forgive.

I personally think there are violent people who won't forgive and he knows it. He might put on the brave face but down below he is scared sh tless about coming back. He screwed over to many influential people.

[steven100]

has anybody heard of the movie

' never ending story '

[Jingthing]

has anybody heard of the movie

' never ending story '

That's a movie. This is real life. So it will indeed end ... in tears.

[steven100]

Ousted Thai premier premier Thaksin Shinawatra ©, flanked by Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim (L) and Nobel laureate and former East Timor president Jose Ramos Horta ® attend the first Strategic Review Forum in Jakarta on July 17, 2012. The three Southeast Asian prominent political figures were panelist in the forum on peace and reconciliation in Southeast Asia.

How embarrasing is this for Thailand, having a convicted criminal and a fugitive from justice as a panelist in the forum on peace and reconciliation. A person who has being the catalyst of all Thailands recent troubles. An alledged perpetrator of crimes against humanity and a finacier and agitator for the fractionisation of Thai society creating violent disunity in the Thai community and viloent public disorder in the streets of Bangkok. Its abhorrent to see him sitting with Jose Ramos Horta a Nobel laureate, a man honoured, like a parasite trying to leech credibility and honour through association. Its like a pedophile on a child safety forum.

Yingluck should immediately come out and repudiate any association between Thaksins attendance and Thailand and its government. After all if his conviction was political his pet government should be able to prove it now in a climate where all political interference would be pro Thaksin.

There's no way she would ever do that .....

" the international community thinks this is a joke " they hold absolutely no belief or seriousness about the thai system of government.

JMHO.

[franzs]

Hi,

I can't believe people not see what is going on here, I am living in BKK

since 1991, so don't tell me that I not understand the people here,

reconciliation is something I could understand in South Africa, I have been

there, the former enemies of apartheid came together and told the bad they have done and ask for forgiveness, that reconciliation worked,

here Thaksin tried to take over the country like a dictator, the fun of it is, that his supporters, the red shirts call them self: United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, what a joke,

this Thaksin is just out to get his confiscated billions back from the government, not want to go to jail for two years, paying billions for everything when he need the red shirt to make trouble,

also something difficult to understand for a westerner, the leaders of the red shirts, who, after they lost the occupation of Bangkok, burned everything they could get there hands on, this leader on bail for terrorism charges are now in the government as MP's,

???????????

what is wrong with this country,

I also not understand the media, why report every fart Thaksin let go,

stop to write and report about him and he will dying away, in a year or two he will be forgotten,

Edited July 18, 2012 by metisdead
: Posting in all capitals or in all bold, and using large or unusual fonts and colors is bad netiquette. Font size reset to default forum font: Arial size 14.

[Wombat6]

If people stopped writing about this guy in the local rags and in this forum he might go away. Why give him the time of day.....he is a criminal who is running this country via his sister and you don't have to be very bright to work that out.

[apetley]

Would it be too much to ask for an apology and admission of guilt first? If none is forthcoming surely there is no need of forgiveness.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Arkady]

All he has to do is come back serve his two year's and bingo all sorted. But I'll lay odd's that will never happen. Gutless now there's a word.

There are four or five other criminal cases pending against him but he has to be physically present in court for the trials to open. Last time he was convinced he could buy his way off the Ratchadapisek Land case but didn't make the donuts tasty enough - LOL - and that's why he came back and allowed that case to proceed. Not that he is willing to face the two years anyway but he could theoretically be sentenced to another 5-10 years while serving the first lot. If you've got enough dosh to buy up a majority of the electorate, most of the crooked politicians, change the constitution to dissolve the institutions that are a threat to you and pass amnesty laws to cancel your conviction and all pending charges, that is the obvious way to go than coming back to prison.

Probably for good reasons he is super paranoid about assassination and even with his own hand picked man in charge of the Corrections Department and a refurbished VIP prison in Laksi he would be terrified, if he had to spend even one night in jug, that he might meet the same end as so many others have in Thai prisons - a fake suicide.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Arkady

[sunshine51]

Ousted Thai premier premier Thaksin Shinawatra ©, flanked by Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim (L) and Nobel laureate and former East Timor president Jose Ramos Horta ® attend the first Strategic Review Forum in Jakarta on July 17, 2012. The three Southeast Asian prominent political figures were panelist in the forum on peace and reconciliation in Southeast Asia.

Has this been photoshopped? He seems to be the only one wearing an ID tag.

I doubt it's been photoshopped. I just ran the pic through image authentication

software (Nikon's) and it came out clean. You can also check the IPTC properties of the pic if you have...say ACDSee...a simple image editor...and it shows the photogs name, who he works for etc....If it had been shopped it wouldn't fly in the press.

Still...it doesn't excuse him from anything...the man's a crook.

I just edited spelling and enlarged the photoa tad...ss51

Edited July 18, 2012 by sunshine51

[Crushdepth]

Enforcing the law and locking up criminal fugitives would go along way towards having some lasting peace. But since that is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, enjoy the anarchy and instability.

[whybother]

The other 47% of people don't matter. Feel free to trample them, there won't be any consequences.

Actually, it's the other 52% of the people ... ie the majority ... don't matter.

[annabel]

Ousted Thai premier premier Thaksin Shinawatra ©, flanked by Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim (L) and Nobel laureate and former East Timor president Jose Ramos Horta ® attend the first Strategic Review Forum in Jakarta on July 17, 2012. The three Southeast Asian prominent political figures were panelist in the forum on peace and reconciliation in Southeast Asia.

Didn't know that he was also a famous comedian ... Ummmm ???

[annabel]

"Everyone says the same thing"

Complete lie

Is he the same Thaksin that a while ago he said he does what court says and he is all doe reconciliation at any costs?

So which Thaksin is the one? Must be the selfish one

Is there another one?

When one is schizophrenic there are multiples of the person in question ... I see many in Thaksin..

[waza]

_{How come we always go off topic when the bars close?}

_{Anyway back on topic I would change Thaksins statement to his imprisonment is the key to reconcilliation}

Edited July 18, 2012 by waza

[MikeOboe57]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

[rubl]

In a democracy it is totally incorrect to say that 'the rest was left for ...'. Less people voted for lots of smaller parties, that's all. Maybe you need to come from a country were normally lots of parties partake in the election process to be able to understand this.

So the only who talk about a landslide seem biased towards the Pheu Thai, UDD, 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' in a very democratic fashion.

BTW any link on HRW talking about a landslide?

i can find it but why do you want a link to the HRW saying it? what difference does it make to you?

In a democracy it is totally incorrect to say that 'the rest was left for ...'. Less people voted for lots of smaller parties, that's all.

it's not totally incorrect to say that... what do you think i meant? that the rest was just given to the smaller parties out of sympathy?

no it's a figure of speech rubl!!! it was meant as exactly what you said.. less people voted for them, which made it basically a two party election - nothing more, no hidden meaning to it.

so either you're purposefully nitpicking or it was lost in translation to you.

So the only who talk about a landslide seem biased towards the Pheu Thai, UDD,

show me anywhere that disputes the landslide... yellow media need not apply, and by that i don't mean the nation and the other paper... i mean yellow sites etc.

'show me any site except those I do not agree with', 'what does it matter to you', 'two party election'.

Being Dutch myself and therefore a non-native English speaker I'm sure something got lost in translation. Even as a figure of speech within the context 'basicly two party election' and 'rest for ...' is incorrect, undemocratic. No need to nitpick, let's find an English teacher and ask his/her opinion on this.

In the mean time, Thaksin wants amnesty ...

[nurofiend]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

here's a little newsflash for you, when they announced to parliament that they were planning a charter change back in august, they stated that after completing the draft it would be decided upon by a national referendum.

the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet.

there's nothing for them to say, yes i like that change it will make things better or no i hate that change it will make things worse.

[Thaddeus]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

here's a little newsflash for you, when they announced to parliament that they were planning a charter change back in august, they stated that after completing the draft it would be decided upon by a national referendum.

And here is a little newsflash for you.

They are now trying to claim that a charter change was one of their pre-election promises.

Which lie do you find most acceptable?

[rubl]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

here's a little newsflash for you, when they announced to parliament that they were planning a charter change back in august, they stated that after completing the draft it would be decided upon by a national referendum.

the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet.

there's nothing for them to say, yes i like that change it will make things better or no i hate that change it will make things worse.

BS, the CC said a full rewrite would require a referendum. So at the time of the referendum the full rewrite would be known. Unless you want to interpret as a referendum is needed to allow/disallow a rewrite of the charter, but even then the rewrite would require another referendum for approval.

Shall I search for the remark of some Pheu Thai MPs and/or executives who said 'why ask the people again' or doesn't it matter to you one way or another?

Edited July 18, 2012 by rubl

[nurofiend]

'show me any site except those I do not agree with', 'what does it matter to you', 'two party election'.

Being Dutch myself and therefore a non-native English speaker I'm sure something got lost in translation. Even as a figure of speech within the context 'basicly two party election' and 'rest for ...' is incorrect, undemocratic. No need to nitpick, let's find an English teacher and ask his/her opinion on this.

In the mean time, Thaksin wants amnesty ...

definitely lost in translation, i was talking about the high percentage that ptp and dems got collectively to highlight that it was basically a two party election, the rest of the percentage was divided between 38 parties... if you can't understand that this is in no way incorrect or undemocrat then that's your problem but don't slur me because of your lack of understanding of what i mean.

'show me any site except those I do not agree with',

no show me any site besides a yellow propaganda site, is that so much to ask?

there's a lot more sources out there, but i take it you can't, hence the diversion to make it out that i'm being unreasonable to ask for this.. nonsense of course.

'what does it matter to you'

i say this because you obviously have your mind made up but here you go:

https://www.hrw.org/by-issue/essential-background/166

first line on the page.. now did that make a difference to your view?

'two party election'.

yes it basically was, if you can't understand the meaning of this and that it's not an offensive statement, i can't help you.

[waza]

'show me any site except those I do not agree with', 'what does it matter to you', 'two party election'.

Being Dutch myself and therefore a non-native English speaker I'm sure something got lost in translation. Even as a figure of speech within the context 'basicly two party election' and 'rest for ...' is incorrect, undemocratic. No need to nitpick, let's find an English teacher and ask his/her opinion on this.

In the mean time, Thaksin wants amnesty ...

definitely lost in translation, i was talking about the high percentage that ptp and dems got collectively to highlight that it was basically a two party election, the rest of the percentage was divided between 38 parties... if you can't understand that this is in no way incorrect or undemocrat then that's your problem but don't slur me because of your lack of understanding of what i mean.

'show me any site except those I do not agree with',

no show me any site besides a yellow propaganda site, is that so much to ask?

there's a lot more sources out there, but i take it you can't, hence the diversion to make it out that i'm being unreasonable to ask for this.. nonsense of course.

'what does it matter to you'

i say this because you obviously have your mind made up but here you go:

https://www.hrw.org/...-background/166

first line on the page.. now did that make a difference to your view?

'two party election'.

yes it basically was, if you can't understand the meaning of this and that it's not an offensive statement, i can't help you.

get a life

[nurofiend]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

here's a little newsflash for you, when they announced to parliament that they were planning a charter change back in august, they stated that after completing the draft it would be decided upon by a national referendum.

And here is a little newsflash for you.

They are now trying to claim that a charter change was one of their pre-election promises.

Which lie do you find most acceptable?

they said it was part of their pre-election campaign, show me evidence that proves that they never spoke about this to the electorate in speeches pre-election and i'll agree.

every media source i've read seems to accept it, including the nation.

which other lie (in your opinion) do you mean?

[nurofiend]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

here's a little newsflash for you, when they announced to parliament that they were planning a charter change back in august, they stated that after completing the draft it would be decided upon by a national referendum.

the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet.

there's nothing for them to say, yes i like that change it will make things better or no i hate that change it will make things worse.

BS, the CC said a full rewrite would require a referendum. So at the time of the referendum the full rewrite would be known. Unless you want to interpret as a referendum is needed to allow/disallow a rewrite of the charter, but even then the rewrite would require another referendum for approval.

Shall I search for the remark of some Pheu Thai MPs and/or executives who said 'why ask the people again' or doesn't it matter to you one way or another?

sorry, what did i say that was bs there?

can you point out a particular point?

then maybe i can debate it with you.

[rubl]

If PTP really had a majority they would be eager to hold a national referendum. If they didn't they would find all sorts of excuses ("too expensive") for not doing it.

here's a little newsflash for you, when they announced to parliament that they were planning a charter change back in august, they stated that after completing the draft it would be decided upon by a national referendum.

the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet.

there's nothing for them to say, yes i like that change it will make things better or no i hate that change it will make things worse.

BS, the CC said a full rewrite would require a referendum. So at the time of the referendum the full rewrite would be known. Unless you want to interpret as a referendum is needed to allow/disallow a rewrite of the charter, but even then the rewrite would require another referendum for approval.

Shall I search for the remark of some Pheu Thai MPs and/or executives who said 'why ask the people again' or doesn't it matter to you one way or another?

sorry, what did i say that was bs there?

can you point out a particular point?

then maybe i can debate it with you.

Of course I'm more than willing to explain, how could I refuse my eternal fiend.

You wrote "the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet."

I simply pointed out that the refendum is either on the complete rewritten charter and which is therefor known, or on whether or not to rewrite it. In the last case another referendum would still be required when the rewrite is finished and therefor known.

Hope this helps

[AleG]

_{How come we always go off topic when the bars close?}

_{Anyway back on topic I would change Thaksins statement to his imprisonment is the key to reconcilliation}

Because when your (not you, waza) cognitive dissonance is brought to light you have to find something, anything, to get away from that feeling.

[nurofiend]

No, sorry, it doesn't work like that, I'm not the defendant here, you are.

'the defendant' lol, give me strength...

the only thing i have to go on is that every media source i've read seems to accept it, including the nation going back as far as last year.

what do you have to go on?

can you answer which other lie (in your opinion) do you mean? you seem to have avoided it and snipped it out of my post.

[nurofiend]

Of course I'm more than willing to explain, how could I refuse my eternal fiend.

You wrote "the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet."

I simply pointed out that the refendum is either on the complete rewritten charter and which is therefor known, or on whether or not to rewrite it. In the last case another referendum would still be required when the rewrite is finished and therefor known.

Hope this helps

if they are doing a full rewrite they must first have a referendum on that alone.

so my point is that you can't possibly make an informed decision on whether a charter rewrite would benefit the country without knowing any details of it.

what is wrong with making the draft and then letting people make an informed decision?

[rubl]

Of course I'm more than willing to explain, how could I refuse my eternal fiend.

You wrote "the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet."

I simply pointed out that the refendum is either on the complete rewritten charter and which is therefor known, or on whether or not to rewrite it. In the last case another referendum would still be required when the rewrite is finished and therefor known.

Hope this helps

if they are doing a full rewrite they must first have a referendum on that alone.

so my point is that you can't possibly make an informed decision on whether a charter rewrite would benefit the country without knowing any details of it.

what is wrong with making the draft and then letting people make an informed decision?

If the government and it's major party Pheu Thai cannot explain why a full rewrite of the charter is deemed necessary, why push for a complete rewrite? And as for 'make first, tell later':

"Policies to be implemented in the first year

1.16 Expedite political reforms with broad based public participation by the appointment of an independent constitution drafting committee to draft a new constitution to ensure that the exercise of political power is based on the rule of law; the exercise of governmental authority is accountable to the people and are open to scrutiny. The new draft constitution will be approved by referendum."

http://www.thailandtoday.org/node/509

[nurofiend]

Of course I'm more than willing to explain, how could I refuse my eternal fiend.

You wrote "the problem with a referendum on charter change now, is that people don't have the benefit of knowing whether they approve of the actual changes or not, because they don't exist yet."

I simply pointed out that the refendum is either on the complete rewritten charter and which is therefor known, or on whether or not to rewrite it. In the last case another referendum would still be required when the rewrite is finished and therefor known.

Hope this helps

if they are doing a full rewrite they must first have a referendum on that alone.

so my point is that you can't possibly make an informed decision on whether a charter rewrite would benefit the country without knowing any details of it.

what is wrong with making the draft and then letting people make an informed decision?

If the government and it's major party Pheu Thai cannot explain why a full rewrite of the charter is deemed necessary, why push for a complete rewrite? And as for 'make first, tell later':

"Policies to be implemented in the first year

1.16 Expedite political reforms with broad based public participation by the appointment of an independent constitution drafting committee to draft a new constitution to ensure that the exercise of political power is based on the rule of law; the exercise of governmental authority is accountable to the people and are open to scrutiny. The new draft constitution will be approved by referendum."

http://www.thailandtoday.org/node/509

that quote is the equivalent of "make first, tell later"

"The new draft constitution will be approved by referendum"

what do you personally find wrong with them making a draft and putting it to a referendum?