Thaksin Kicks Off U.S. Trip With Cheers And Jeers

[OzMick]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power. So even if Thaksin is fully guilty of the charges against him, his conviction will necessarily be seen as being politically motivated, at least in part. The US authorities will of course get the same story from the current Thai government, which would only serve to corroborate this perception. So it shouldn't be surprising if a visa were granted (especially as it would have been supported by the Thai authorities).

By way of comparison, China considers the Dalai Lama to be a criminal of even greater dimensions (responsible, in their eyes, for terrorism and treason). However, that does not prevent the US and other countries from allowing him to visit because they understand that these accusations are politically motivated. Of course, I am NOT saying that the Dalai Lama and Thaksin are on the 'same level' in any respect, only that the US will understandably be more flexible in granting visas to 'criminals' when the criminal charges are seen to have a political dimension. [And, yes, I expect the Thaksin-haters to ignore this and flame me nonetheless.... asbestos suit on...]

A few less casual lies please. Convicted in absentia? Or allowed to travel on bail?a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers? Thaksin's proxy government won a free election.And comparing Thaksin to the Dalai Lama? GTFOOH.

[birdpooguava]

Geez Thai at heart, how many times will this need to be explained.

He has been charged with numerous offences, most of which cannot proceed because the thai law says he must be present in Thailand.

But the one conviction recorded against him, with a sentence already handed down of two years jail was heard and completed before he took himself into self imposed exile. He was sentenced to two years jail, given bail and allowed, at his request, to travel to China / Hong Kong for the olympic games. Bail was granted (stupidly) on his promise that he would return, he didn't, he broke his promise / broke his bail conditions and absconded - self imposed exile.

The case he was convicted on was a case of abuse of authority. In almost every county there are laws which say that politicians and their immediate family cannot buy state assets, and more. The said law is there for very good reasons - to stop unscrupulous people, who find themselves in positions of power from taking the common assets of the people. The said law is an old and very appropriate law, it's been on the statute books of Thailand for decades. Any suggestion that it was a new law created by the junta government or more recent goverrnments is totally false and is totally untruthfull.

The paymaster and his (former) wife both knew very well that he could not sign a document to approve sale of commonwealth property (land) to his wife. They are both well informed people dealing with legal matters continuously in the course of business, they both had / have numerous high profile lawyers in their enterages, there is no way they did not know the law, and in any case ignornance of the law is no excuse - a well established tenant of the law.

In reality there were bidders for the land in question but somehow that round of bidding was cancelled. In quick time the paymasters wife was the only bidder offering well under the value of the property. The paymaster signed on behalf of the state to close the sale - to his wife. His action was totally illegal and totally immoral.

In more recent time the paymaster, especially in the run up to the last election had several warcrys, one of which was 'fight for democracy and justice for all', but in reality his actions are the opposite.

It's also true that that very senior state officials at the photo op (there were photos in the media of him signing the state documents) knew very well that what they were witnesssing was totally illegal and they had a duty to say that it was illegal and could not proceed - they said nothing, just smiled. They were in fact derelict in their responsibilities to the state - the people of Thailand.

Also, the case was heard and the verdict given and the two year sentence imposed under a paymaster puppet PM - his own party.

None of the above is opinion, it's hard fact. How can anybody possibly say this case was politically motivated?

The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.

Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.

Yeah, not politically motivated...strictly by the letter of the law, due process and all that

[ratcatcher]

Geez Thai at heart, how many times will this need to be explained.

He has been charged with numerous offences, most of which cannot proceed because the thai law says he must be present in Thailand.

But the one conviction recorded against him, with a sentence already handed down of two years jail was heard and completed before he took himself into self imposed exile. He was sentenced to two years jail, given bail and allowed, at his request, to travel to China / Hong Kong for the olympic games. Bail was granted (stupidly) on his promise that he would return, he didn't, he broke his promise / broke his bail conditions and absconded - self imposed exile.

The case he was convicted on was a case of abuse of authority. In almost every county there are laws which say that politicians and their immediate family cannot buy state assets, and more. The said law is there for very good reasons - to stop unscrupulous people, who find themselves in positions of power from taking the common assets of the people. The said law is an old and very appropriate law, it's been on the statute books of Thailand for decades. Any suggestion that it was a new law created by the junta government or more recent goverrnments is totally false and is totally untruthfull.

The paymaster and his (former) wife both knew very well that he could not sign a document to approve sale of commonwealth property (land) to his wife. They are both well informed people dealing with legal matters continuously in the course of business, they both had / have numerous high profile lawyers in their enterages, there is no way they did not know the law, and in any case ignornance of the law is no excuse - a well established tenant of the law.

In reality there were bidders for the land in question but somehow that round of bidding was cancelled. In quick time the paymasters wife was the only bidder offering well under the value of the property. The paymaster signed on behalf of the state to close the sale - to his wife. His action was totally illegal and totally immoral.

In more recent time the paymaster, especially in the run up to the last election had several warcrys, one of which was 'fight for democracy and justice for all', but in reality his actions are the opposite.

It's also true that that very senior state officials at the photo op (there were photos in the media of him signing the state documents) knew very well that what they were witnesssing was totally illegal and they had a duty to say that it was illegal and could not proceed - they said nothing, just smiled. They were in fact derelict in their responsibilities to the state - the people of Thailand.

Also, the case was heard and the verdict given and the two year sentence imposed under a paymaster puppet PM - his own party.

None of the above is opinion, it's hard fact. How can anybody possibly say this case was politically motivated?

The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.

Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.

Yeah, not politically motivated...strictly by the letter of the law, due process and all that

Wikipedia to the rescue once again?

[Docno]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power. So even if Thaksin is fully guilty of the charges against him, his conviction will necessarily be seen as being politically motivated, at least in part. The US authorities will of course get the same story from the current Thai government, which would only serve to corroborate this perception. So it shouldn't be surprising if a visa were granted (especially as it would have been supported by the Thai authorities).

By way of comparison, China considers the Dalai Lama to be a criminal of even greater dimensions (responsible, in their eyes, for terrorism and treason). However, that does not prevent the US and other countries from allowing him to visit because they understand that these accusations are politically motivated. Of course, I am NOT saying that the Dalai Lama and Thaksin are on the 'same level' in any respect, only that the US will understandably be more flexible in granting visas to 'criminals' when the criminal charges are seen to have a political dimension. [And, yes, I expect the Thaksin-haters to ignore this and flame me nonetheless.... asbestos suit on...]

A few less casual lies please. Convicted in absentia? Or allowed to travel on bail?a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers? Thaksin's proxy government won a free election.And comparing Thaksin to the Dalai Lama? GTFOOH.

Exactly as expected :-) I explicitly said that I was not equating the Dalai Lama with Thaksin, but you chose to overlook that and so I am compelled to overlook the rest of your post. Peace...

[scorecard]

Geez Thai at heart, how many times will this need to be explained.

He has been charged with numerous offences, most of which cannot proceed because the thai law says he must be present in Thailand.

But the one conviction recorded against him, with a sentence already handed down of two years jail was heard and completed before he took himself into self imposed exile. He was sentenced to two years jail, given bail and allowed, at his request, to travel to China / Hong Kong for the olympic games. Bail was granted (stupidly) on his promise that he would return, he didn't, he broke his promise / broke his bail conditions and absconded - self imposed exile.

The case he was convicted on was a case of abuse of authority. In almost every county there are laws which say that politicians and their immediate family cannot buy state assets, and more. The said law is there for very good reasons - to stop unscrupulous people, who find themselves in positions of power from taking the common assets of the people. The said law is an old and very appropriate law, it's been on the statute books of Thailand for decades. Any suggestion that it was a new law created by the junta government or more recent goverrnments is totally false and is totally untruthfull.

The paymaster and his (former) wife both knew very well that he could not sign a document to approve sale of commonwealth property (land) to his wife. They are both well informed people dealing with legal matters continuously in the course of business, they both had / have numerous high profile lawyers in their enterages, there is no way they did not know the law, and in any case ignornance of the law is no excuse - a well established tenant of the law.

In reality there were bidders for the land in question but somehow that round of bidding was cancelled. In quick time the paymasters wife was the only bidder offering well under the value of the property. The paymaster signed on behalf of the state to close the sale - to his wife. His action was totally illegal and totally immoral.

In more recent time the paymaster, especially in the run up to the last election had several warcrys, one of which was 'fight for democracy and justice for all', but in reality his actions are the opposite.

It's also true that that very senior state officials at the photo op (there were photos in the media of him signing the state documents) knew very well that what they were witnesssing was totally illegal and they had a duty to say that it was illegal and could not proceed - they said nothing, just smiled. They were in fact derelict in their responsibilities to the state - the people of Thailand.

Also, the case was heard and the verdict given and the two year sentence imposed under a paymaster puppet PM - his own party.

None of the above is opinion, it's hard fact. How can anybody possibly say this case was politically motivated?

The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.

Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.

Yeah, not politically motivated...strictly by the letter of the law, due process and all that

Not so fast, no matter how you try to say thaksin wasn't overseeing the FIDF, he was still the prime minister, and the laws about abuse of authority are still totally valid, he broke the law in relation to signing documents which allowed a sale of state land to his wife.

This is straight forward abuse of authority / abuse of power and totally illegal, totally regardless of where the FIDF fits into the picture.

[haroldc]

My father is very ill back in the states. He cannot travel. The US government will not give my daughters' Thai grandmother (my mother-in-law) a tourist visa. My father and my wife's mother will never meet thanks to the US government.

However, Thaksin, a convicted criminal on the lamb, can get a tourist visa to the US.

That is plain wrong!

I am an American citizen married to a Thai national. We have 3 children, all of whom have American citizenship. Some years ago I wanted to take my family back to the United States so that my children could attend school there. I was told that my wife could not get a visa because my income was insufficient to support a family of five. But a convicted criminal and fugitive facing multiple additional charges and implicated in the extrajudicial killing of thousands of people can get a visa. Unbelievable...

[h90]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power. So even if Thaksin is fully guilty of the charges against him, his conviction will necessarily be seen as being politically motivated, at least in part. The US authorities will of course get the same story from the current Thai government, which would only serve to corroborate this perception. So it shouldn't be surprising if a visa were granted (especially as it would have been supported by the Thai authorities).

By way of comparison, China considers the Dalai Lama to be a criminal of even greater dimensions (responsible, in their eyes, for terrorism and treason). However, that does not prevent the US and other countries from allowing him to visit because they understand that these accusations are politically motivated. Of course, I am NOT saying that the Dalai Lama and Thaksin are on the 'same level' in any respect, only that the US will understandably be more flexible in granting visas to 'criminals' when the criminal charges are seen to have a political dimension. [And, yes, I expect the Thaksin-haters to ignore this and flame me nonetheless.... asbestos suit on...]

he jumped bail and was convicted when his party was in power. Either Samak (who called himself nominee of Thaksin) or Thaksins brother in law, can't recall....

Hardly a government installed by the coup maker. And by the way the coup maker is now in the coalition with Thaksin.

[Docno]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power.

<snip for brevity>

With respect, I must disagree with your claimed "facts of the matter" :-

1. He resigned as elected-PM, to run the election in April-2006, and thus became merely caretaker-PM, no longer "democratically elected" as had previously been. I do accept that this is a subtle difference, but nevertheless real.

2. His maximum-6-months term as caretaker-PM had expired, by the time of the coup in September 2006, yet he was still trying to pretend that he was legally PM. You may remember that he was being abandoned by members of his Cabinet, as the summer & political-crisis continued, through the summer of that year.

3. His conviction took place, not under the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, but under the later elected PPP-led coalition-government then led by PM-Somchai (Thaksin's then brother-in-law), which took-power (under the late PM-Samak) in January-2008 after the democratic-elections of December-2007.

4. He was sentenced in-absentia, only because he'd 'done a runner', and you may also recall that someone had tried to bribe the judges (the 'Lunch-Box scandal') for which at least one of Thaksin's lawyers later served time. He'd previously expressed full confidence, in the justice of the court and any outcome, so clearly did not feel at-the-time that he was being railroaded.

No need for an asbestos suit, I shall endeavour not to flame, but merely wish to try to get the facts right.

Fair points, but we're dealing with differences in perception with the exception of #3, on which you are correct. There are many who view Thaksin's conviction (by a vote of 5-4 in the supreme court) to be politically motivated, and given the politically-charged atmosphere in thailand at the time and Thaksin's history, this is understandable. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that Thaksin was not corrupt (apologies for the double negative), but that there is sufficient reason to believe that there were also political factors at play in his conviction in-absentia. To Western governments, this provides enough 'doubt' to justify flexibility in the granting of a visa...

[Thai at Heart]

You can try to twist it if it makes you feel happy, the agency selling the land is a government entity and that's fact, there is no doubt whatever that he broke the law.

There is no question mark whatever, this was not a politically motivated case.

Well, there was plenty of debate at the time as to whether it was or not.

http://www.bot.or.th/English/FinancialInstitutionsDevelopmentFund/About_FIDF/Pages/History.aspx

Juristic Status

FIDF is a separated juristic entity from the Bank of Thailand. The Fund Management Department of Bank of Thailand carry on the operations of FIDF and provide administrative staffs. FIDF keep its own accounting records and budget. The Auditing General Office audit FIDF and report the audit result to the Minister of Finance and inform BOT.

And now we have a different government in, and we have a different ruling as to whether it is or not.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/thailand-economy-decrees-idINDEE81L07T20120222

The court also declared legal a decree that made the Bank of Thailand responsible for managing 1.14 trillion baht of Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) debt dating from bank bailouts during Asia's 1997/98 financial crisis.

And what a holy hoo haa that caused in discussion. So until this year, the BOT wasn't legally responsible for the debt, and now it is. So, someone entered a land auction, with an organisation that at the time, appeared outside the direct control of the Central Bank, then a few years later with a different government in, all of a sudden, the Central Bank is responsible directly responsible for its management.

So which is it? It took a legal interpretation to decide, and it caught Thaksin, according to the Bank itself in 2006 it wasn't responsible, and that the FIDF was a seperate juristic entity. Now the central bank is on the hook for the FIDF which took another legal interpretation just a few months ago. Of all the illegal stuff that Thaksin did get up to, it hinged on this definition of the role of the FIDF to finally get him.

I see that as a possibility to say that there was an agenda to catch him on something, and not a cut and dried case of entering into a contract with a government entity. Do you honestly think his missus would have bought the land if they were under the impression that the FIDF was a government entity? Strewth, you aren't giving these people much credit, when you are as shonky as they are, you normally take a raft of lawyers and a hell of a lot of nous to keep your nose clean.

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0040.pdf

Section 29 TER

It shall have the "Department of Financial Institutions Development Fund" as its competent authority and shall be separate and kept wholly distinct from the Bank's other business.

If you can't entertain the merest possibility that the FIDF sits in a very grey area for it's juristic identity either as a government entity or not, well, I won't bother trying to get anyone to see the possibility, but for myself, I take it to see that the law set out that it wasn't ever meant to be, then it was, but the Bank wasn't on the hook for financing its debts, and now in 2012 its juristic definition has changed again so that the Bank is responsible for financing its debts. All very fine legalese.

[OzMick]

A few less casual lies please. Convicted in absentia? Or allowed to travel on bail?a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers? Thaksin's proxy government won a free election.And comparing Thaksin to the Dalai Lama? GTFOOH.

Exactly as expected :-) I explicitly said that I was not equating the Dalai Lama with Thaksin, but you chose to overlook that and so I am compelled to overlook the rest of your post. Peace...

OK, I will draw the DL comment. How about the self-serving historical (hysterical?) inaccuracies?

[Moruya]

So, now we know!

It was all arranged by the Thai Government for DL to be allowed to step foot on US soil, and not be arrested.

How can we be surprised? MP's pay regular visits, Chief of Police goes and great,.. Not one has done his duty, which was to try to catch and bring Thaksin back to face the music. So, him being in the US now is just the logic thing to see. Wait a bit, and soon Yingluck will be doing a photo op with Pee T.

DL?

Dalai Lama

Dreams of liberty

[Keesters]

Thaksin kicks off US trip with cheers and jeers

I jeer and boo both him and the US for letting the criminal onto their shores.

[Buchholz]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers.

Thailand's 26th Prime Minister.

The "coup-makers installed head of government"... and remember, it's a "fact"...

Somchai Wongsawat

(3rd left, front row)

Facebook public photo

.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Buchholz

[Mosha]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power. So even if Thaksin is fully guilty of the charges against him, his conviction will necessarily be seen as being politically motivated, at least in part. The US authorities will of course get the same story from the current Thai government, which would only serve to corroborate this perception. So it shouldn't be surprising if a visa were granted (especially as it would have been supported by the Thai authorities).

By way of comparison, China considers the Dalai Lama to be a criminal of even greater dimensions (responsible, in their eyes, for terrorism and treason). However, that does not prevent the US and other countries from allowing him to visit because they understand that these accusations are politically motivated. Of course, I am NOT saying that the Dalai Lama and Thaksin are on the 'same level' in any respect, only that the US will understandably be more flexible in granting visas to 'criminals' when the criminal charges are seen to have a political dimension. [And, yes, I expect the Thaksin-haters to ignore this and flame me nonetheless.... asbestos suit on...]

A few less casual lies please. Convicted in absentia? Or allowed to travel on bail?a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers? Thaksin's proxy government won a free election.And comparing Thaksin to the Dalai Lama? GTFOOH.

Exactly as expected :-) I explicitly said that I was not equating the Dalai Lama with Thaksin, but you chose to overlook that and so I am compelled to overlook the rest of your post. Peace...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra#Convictions_and_exile

He was at the trial, he somehow missed the sentencing.

[tlansford]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power.

<snip for brevity>

With respect, I must disagree with your claimed "facts of the matter" :-

1. He resigned as elected-PM, to run the election in April-2006, and thus became merely caretaker-PM, no longer "democratically elected" as had previously been. I do accept that this is a subtle difference, but nevertheless real.

2. His maximum-6-months term as caretaker-PM had expired, by the time of the coup in September 2006, yet he was still trying to pretend that he was legally PM. You may remember that he was being abandoned by members of his Cabinet, as the summer & political-crisis continued, through the summer of that year.

3. His conviction took place, not under the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, but under the later elected PPP-led coalition-government then led by PM-Somchai (Thaksin's then brother-in-law), which took-power (under the late PM-Samak) in January-2008 after the democratic-elections of December-2007.

4. He was sentenced in-absentia, only because he'd 'done a runner', and you may also recall that someone had tried to bribe the judges (the 'Lunch-Box scandal') for which at least one of Thaksin's lawyers later served time. He'd previously expressed full confidence, in the justice of the court and any outcome, so clearly did not feel at-the-time that he was being railroaded.

No need for an asbestos suit, I shall endeavour not to flame, but merely wish to try to get the facts right.

Fair points, but we're dealing with differences in perception with the exception of #3, on which you are correct. There are many who view Thaksin's conviction (by a vote of 5-4 in the supreme court) to be politically motivated, and given the politically-charged atmosphere in thailand at the time and Thaksin's history, this is understandable. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that Thaksin was not corrupt (apologies for the double negative), but that there is sufficient reason to believe that there were also political factors at play in his conviction in-absentia. To Western governments, this provides enough 'doubt' to justify flexibility in the granting of a visa...

number 3 is correct, but it is irrelevant which government was in power.

[Thai at Heart]

Geez Thai at heart, how many times will this need to be explained.

He has been charged with numerous offences, most of which cannot proceed because the thai law says he must be present in Thailand.

But the one conviction recorded against him, with a sentence already handed down of two years jail was heard and completed before he took himself into self imposed exile. He was sentenced to two years jail, given bail and allowed, at his request, to travel to China / Hong Kong for the olympic games. Bail was granted (stupidly) on his promise that he would return, he didn't, he broke his promise / broke his bail conditions and absconded - self imposed exile.

The case he was convicted on was a case of abuse of authority. In almost every county there are laws which say that politicians and their immediate family cannot buy state assets, and more. The said law is there for very good reasons - to stop unscrupulous people, who find themselves in positions of power from taking the common assets of the people. The said law is an old and very appropriate law, it's been on the statute books of Thailand for decades. Any suggestion that it was a new law created by the junta government or more recent goverrnments is totally false and is totally untruthfull.

The paymaster and his (former) wife both knew very well that he could not sign a document to approve sale of commonwealth property (land) to his wife. They are both well informed people dealing with legal matters continuously in the course of business, they both had / have numerous high profile lawyers in their enterages, there is no way they did not know the law, and in any case ignornance of the law is no excuse - a well established tenant of the law.

In reality there were bidders for the land in question but somehow that round of bidding was cancelled. In quick time the paymasters wife was the only bidder offering well under the value of the property. The paymaster signed on behalf of the state to close the sale - to his wife. His action was totally illegal and totally immoral.

In more recent time the paymaster, especially in the run up to the last election had several warcrys, one of which was 'fight for democracy and justice for all', but in reality his actions are the opposite.

It's also true that that very senior state officials at the photo op (there were photos in the media of him signing the state documents) knew very well that what they were witnesssing was totally illegal and they had a duty to say that it was illegal and could not proceed - they said nothing, just smiled. They were in fact derelict in their responsibilities to the state - the people of Thailand.

Also, the case was heard and the verdict given and the two year sentence imposed under a paymaster puppet PM - his own party.

None of the above is opinion, it's hard fact. How can anybody possibly say this case was politically motivated?

The charge was based on alleged violation of Section 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specifies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Section 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin. Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.

Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.

Yeah, not politically motivated...strictly by the letter of the law, due process and all that

Not so fast, no matter how you try to say thaksin wasn't overseeing the FIDF, he was still the prime minister, and the laws about abuse of authority are still totally valid, he broke the law in relation to signing documents which allowed a sale of state land to his wife.

This is straight forward abuse of authority / abuse of power and totally illegal, totally regardless of where the FIDF fits into the picture.

Was it state land? Is/Was the FIDF a government institution. On such judgements very big issues have been created. If it was such an amazingly open and shut case, what was the judgement of the court in count? 5 to 4 if I remember.

Then take a little time to go and read the CV's of the sitting judges. Read from as many sources as you can, because it makes extremely interesting reading.

[rixalex]

Fair points, but we're dealing with differences in perception with the exception of #3, on which you are correct. There are many who view Thaksin's conviction (by a vote of 5-4 in the supreme court) to be politically motivated, and given the politically-charged atmosphere in thailand at the time and Thaksin's history, this is understandable. Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that Thaksin was not corrupt (apologies for the double negative), but that there is sufficient reason to believe that there were also political factors at play in his conviction in-absentia. To Western governments, this provides enough 'doubt' to justify flexibility in the granting of a visa...

As far as many who view Thaksin's conviction (by a vote of 5-4 in the supreme court) to be politically motivated is concerned, i think no matter what the circumstances of a trial against him are, if the verdict is guilty, that will be the cry. When the trial against Thaksin began, with Thaksin's own party in power, i felt confident that the verdict would be in his favour, for i think obvious reasons when considering the prior assets concealment case. I also thought that in the highly unlikely event of him being found guilty, the red shirts would have little choice but to accept his guilt, and wouldn't be able to blame those in power for affecting the outcome, as it was they themselves in power.

I was proved wrong on all counts. He was found guilty and the red shirts did not accept the verdict.

[Buchholz]

So it shouldn't be surprising if a visa were granted (especially as it would have been supported by the Thai authorities).

What's surprising is that we're expected to believe he supposedly waited six years before applying.

Also, rather than simply "support" the request, the "Thai authorities" (otherwise known as sister and cousin and brother-in-law) were most likely directly involved with that actual submission of the request.

It's how the Japanese visa was obtained.

[Buchholz]

The US is out of order in granting this visa. Take out all the corruption allegations ( convictions ) etc, they have granted a visa to the man that oversaw the extrajudicial execution of 2500 people during the drug clampdown.

You can't even say it was the execution of drug suspects, as it was only last week several police were convicted of murdering a young boy at that time, under the guise of this clampdown.

TS should be arrested for that policy alone, the US has disgraced itself by issuing this visa to a man with a diabolical human rights record.

Dr. Thaksin was cleared in multiple investigations.

And Police Lieutenant-Colonel Thaksin has multiple investigations and indictments ongoing.

.

[Buchholz]

Look, regardless of where you stand on Thaksin, the facts of the matter are these: he was democratically elected, ousted in a coup, and then convicted in absentia under a government that was effectively installed by the coup-makers. Under a subsequent election, Thaksin's party was again elected into power.

<snip for brevity>

With respect, I must disagree with your claimed "facts of the matter" :-

1. He resigned as elected-PM, to run the election in April-2006, and thus became merely caretaker-PM, no longer "democratically elected" as had previously been. I do accept that this is a subtle difference, but nevertheless real.

2. His maximum-6-months term as caretaker-PM had expired, by the time of the coup in September 2006, yet he was still trying to pretend that he was legally PM. You may remember that he was being abandoned by members of his Cabinet, as the summer & political-crisis continued, through the summer of that year.

3. His conviction took place, not under the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud, but under the later elected PPP-led coalition-government then led by PM-Somchai (Thaksin's then brother-in-law), which took-power (under the late PM-Samak) in January-2008 after the democratic-elections of December-2007.

4. He was sentenced in-absentia, only because he'd 'done a runner', and you may also recall that someone had tried to bribe the judges (the 'Lunch-Box scandal') for which at least one of Thaksin's lawyers later served time. He'd previously expressed full confidence, in the justice of the court and any outcome, so clearly did not feel at-the-time that he was being railroaded.

No need for an asbestos suit, I shall endeavour not to flame, but merely wish to try to get the facts right.

Thank you for addressing the other "fact"-checking of this post.

.

[coma]

Is Thaksin in the U.S.? The only papers or news organizations reporting this are Thai. I wait to see proof he is even in the U.S.

yeah, i bet it's a conspiracy!

Is this guy for real ?? Hahahaha. Some people mystify me.

[Buchholz]

My father is very ill back in the states. He cannot travel. The US government will not give my daughters' Thai grandmother (my mother-in-law) a tourist visa. My father and my wife's mother will never meet thanks to the US government.

However, Thaksin, a convicted criminal on the lamb, can get a tourist visa to the US.

That is plain wrong!

I am an American citizen married to a Thai national. We have 3 children, all of whom have American citizenship. Some years ago I wanted to take my family back to the United States so that my children could attend school there. I was told that my wife could not get a visa because my income was insufficient to support a family of five. But a convicted criminal and fugitive facing multiple additional charges and implicated in the extrajudicial killing of thousands of people can get a visa. Unbelievable...

It would have helped her request for a visa if her cousin also happened to be Thailand's Foreign Minister.

.

[phiphidon]

In terms of believing that the judgement against Thaksin was politically motivated, yup. I do.

Rather than getting into a lot of generalisations about how bad the system is, and how many iffy decisions there have been, which is easy to do, can you then tell me what specifically about this case for which he was convicted, based on the evidence you saw, that makes you think that legally he was treated unfairly?

Well we could start by discussing whether or not the FIDF was a government institution at all......According to the Bank of Thailand at the time it wasn't, but subsequently it was, I wonder if it is today? Why does it take a court to work out whether an institution is a government institution or not?

You miss my point, and maybe I got my meaning wrong by saying the judgement was political. He played the game as it was always played. Be in power, and win. He was guilty of wrongdoing as judged on the day. But it still took a hell of an amount of legalese to define whether the various organisations were state entities or not. It worked for everyone else before, but largely they have got off scot free without anyone pointing too much of a finger at them.

It is how the court system came to be rejigged to change the situation to make sure they got him which is my issue. Would the case have ever come to light if the coup hadn't happened, if the Dems hadn't boycotted the election, the yellows hadn't protested for months, and god knows who else involved....

The system should be able to stand on its own two feet and make these decisions impartially without having to resort to the extremes that have been happening in Thailand for the last 10 years. It is the very idea that rules are there to be bent and interpreted that is the issue. There are either laws and fair judgements or there are not.

This was something I found in the nations blogs, there are literally thousands of posts out there discussing the rights and wrongs of what happened.

http://blog.nationmu...nt.php?id=13430

The FIDF appointed two committees to supervise the bidding process, the bid acceptance committee and the price opening committee. There were 4 potential bidders. But before each potential bidder can submit a bid, their qualification must be approved by these committees. One of the potential bidders was disqualified because their attorney who submitted the bid was not properly authorized. Khunying Pajamarn (offered B772 Mil) and two others are found to be qualified. The other two were publicly listed real estate developers, Noble Development Public Co. LTD. (offered B750 Mil), and House Public Co. LTD. (offered B730 Mil).

In December 2003, after the opening of the bidding price, the committee held a meeting to approve the sale to the highest bidder and the Land Sale and Purchased Agreement was signed with Khunyin Pajamarn.

Also in December 2003, Thaksin, as a husband, signed the consent form required to effect the registration of the land transfer.

As part of the formality of any registration of real estate requiring spousal consent,

... he used his official identity card. It shows his official title as Prime Minister.

And this is important… Prior to putting down his signature, 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. This is supported by the Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 which ruled that the FIDF is a separate and distinct juristic body independent from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. It has its own rights and duty in accordance with laws and regulations within the boundary of its objectives.

This has been raked over 1000 times, but was it an absolutely clear abuse of a member of government entering into a contract with a state enterprise? Hardly, but that is the way the court saw it on the day.

I personally think very much that it was a political act, one only has to read the wikileaks of the time regarding the military junta finding it hard to find something to pin on Thaksin. Anyway thats just my opinion but I found a interesting link a while ago and have only just now rediscovered it.

It is a very detailed look at all aspects of the case - as I say it makes interesting reading if you read it all (you need to read the blog entries on the right hand side as well particularly those entries for the month of June). Ignore the unedifying title, it's worth it.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

Edited August 10, 2012 by phiphidon

[waza]

haha Phiphidon the king of blogsites

[billd766]

My point being when are we going to start bashing England for letting T in the door or isn't this as much fun as bashing the US?

why only bash England, its the UK, Britian or the United Kingdom and they pulled his visa when this all kicked off

From the Nation:

Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra arrived in the United Kingdom on Friday night and would stay in that country for about a week, his spokesman said yesterday.

Noppadon Pattama, former foreign minister who also acts as Thaksin's legal adviser, said the fugitive former PM would travel to the UK more often although he would mostly live in the city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

"He will travel more frequently between London and Dubai. He feels comfortable while in England. He has a house in London and the city is a centre of the world's news and information. He is likely to travel more often to England but he will mainly live in Dubai, where people can meet him more conveniently," he said.

Noppadon said Thaksin was also considering travelling to the United States to meet his Thai supporters there.

During the tenure of the previous government led by Thaksin's rivals the Democrat Party, the ex-premier's visa was revoked by the UK and he was denied entry by the American authorities. http://www.nationmul...S-30180928.html

I was always under the impression London was in England but if you want to point the finger at the other countries in the UK for some bashing up to you. It appears his visa for the UK is intact.

There is also a London, Ontario, Canada and probably a few more as well.

[rubl]

Probably not true, but rumour has it that k. Thaksin wants to make his last stand in Garryowen, Montana

http://www.huffingto...n_1751962.htmld

[Buchholz]

Fast forwarding a half dozen years to the present and the thread's topic, brings us to his having to negotiate the narrow staircase at his main New York venue

in order to give a speech to throngs of Red Shirts (at least 30 or so) in attendance inside the posh Pansri restaurant (on the second floor)

Pantip.com

Edited August 10, 2012 by Buchholz

[OzMick]

Most people if they were found guilty in a 5-4 split decision and on what they could consider shaky grounds, would lodge an appeal and apply for bail until the appeal is heard. In a country where you B-I-L is PM and bail is granted to convicted murderer's who get a death sentence, that course would be even more rational and likely. So why do a runner and not lodge an appeal?

[phiphidon]

haha Phiphidon the king of blogsites

Waza, one day you'll find a way of posting that does not involve knee jerk reactions.

If you had bothered to read the "blog" you will find a well researched piece of investigation, more than a match for anything posted on this forum so far. Plenty of accreditations should you wish to check them out yourself.

But no, what do we get from Waza, this, "haha Phiphidon the king of blogsites"?

[bigbamboo]

Still the Ratchapisek land case didn't work out so bad after all.

Thaksin broke the law and even accepted the court's decision (at the time, at least). Pojaman got her money back plus 7 per cent interest (not bad in these lean times). And best of all the FIDF sold the land in excess of 1.8 bilion baht leaving the state agency to collect more than a billion extra for the national coffers than if it had been sold at the generously appraised price before.