Chalerm Rules Out Thaksin Extradition

[rubl]

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Alternate History, or history as some would have liked to have seen it.

Now just skipping all the rhetoric with nothing left, let's return to the OP with Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm rules out a Thaksin extradiction. Only he's finished rewriting the rules to make them more proper and just, will he ask k. Thaksin to return.

[FOODLOVER]

Do I know Rich teacher..?

We all do.

[Pimay1]

Do I know Rich teacher..?

I think we all do....

[whybother]

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

[rixalex]

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

And whybother is only getting started... we also had the blatant law dodging assets concealment case, the serious erosion of checks and balances, the extreme level of nepotism (which we are now returning to), the million baht law suits intimidating media tactics, and last but by no means least, the killings of thousands by authorities without trial.... and this is "doing nicely"?!!!!

[rubl]

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

And whybother is only getting started... we also had the blatant law dodging assets concealment case, the serious erosion of checks and balances, the extreme level of nepotism (which we are now returning to), the million baht law suits intimidating media tactics, and last but by no means least, the killings of thousands by authorities without trial.... and this is "doing nicely"?!!!!

Actually one may say k. Thaksin started his (ex-)PM career on the wrong foot already.

In 2001, after using his riches to found his own party and become prime minister, he was charged with having illegally concealed his assets by giving them to his maids, drivers and family. “It was purely an honest mistake,” a tearful Thaksin told the Constitutional Court before being acquitted by a single vote.

[yoshiwara]

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Pre-coup, Thaksin, while PM, was engaged in money laundering, so one might re-phrase that as 'Pre-coup Thaksin was doing nicely'. As I said above, there is not one forum Thaksin apologist prepared to challenge the evidence which led to Thaksin's convictions and as others have pointed out neither did Thaksin. Also, even after it has been pointed out that he was convicted under pre-coup laws, they mutter darkly about 'due process' and 'let's do it again' (presumably next time with a guaranteed result in favour of Thakin). The agenda of the Thaksin cheerleaders becomes clearer with each contribution. It is nothing less than the smashing of the judiciary system until it is supine to the wishes of Thaksin Shinawatra. Three institutions stand in the way of Thaksin's absolutism: one is the army, the second is the judiciary. The fourth, the police force he thinks is in his pocket. Be aware.

[Rich teacher]

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

He sold Shin Corp before calling the election. The laws that were changed had been proposed since 2001 and followed criticism by Abhisit that Thaksin had not sufficiently opened up the Thai telecommunications sector to foreigners. The sale was also after years of heated demands by many public groups calling for the Shinawatras complete sale of Shin Corp, so Thaksin would not have a conflict of interests. At the time the law was passed DTAC and Orange were already breaching the old 25% cap by having 40 & 49% foreign holdings.DTAC & Orange had also criticised the government heavily for not increasing the cap earlier.

[whybother]

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

He sold Shin Corp before calling the election. The laws that were changed had been proposed since 2001 and followed criticism by Abhisit that Thaksin had not sufficiently opened up the Thai telecommunications sector to foreigners. The sale was also after years of heated demands by many public groups calling for the Shinawatras complete sale of Shin Corp, so Thaksin would not have a conflict of interests. At the time the law was passed DTAC and Orange were already breaching the old 25% cap by having 40 & 49% foreign holdings.DTAC & Orange had also criticised the government heavily for not increasing the cap earlier.

Why did he call elections then?

[Rich teacher]

Pre-coup, Thaksin, while PM, was engaged in money laundering, so one might re-phrase that as 'Pre-coup Thaksin was doing nicely'. As I said above, there is not one forum Thaksin apologist prepared to challenge the evidence which led to Thaksin's convictions and as others have pointed out neither did Thaksin. Also, even after it has been pointed out that he was convicted under pre-coup laws, they mutter darkly about 'due process' and 'let's do it again' (presumably next time with a guaranteed result in favour of Thakin). The agenda of the Thaksin cheerleaders becomes clearer with each contribution. It is nothing less than the smashing of the judiciary system until it is supine to the wishes of Thaksin Shinawatra. Three institutions stand in the way of Thaksin's absolutism: one is the army, the second is the judiciary. The fourth, the police force he thinks is in his pocket. Be aware.

The Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the PM did not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF. Those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight andand regulations governing the agency. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act states that those commiting malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party, i.e. the FIDF. That is the law.

[Rich teacher]

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

He sold Shin Corp before calling the election. The laws that were changed had been proposed since 2001 and followed criticism by Abhisit that Thaksin had not sufficiently opened up the Thai telecommunications sector to foreigners. The sale was also after years of heated demands by many public groups calling for the Shinawatras complete sale of Shin Corp, so Thaksin would not have a conflict of interests. At the time the law was passed DTAC and Orange were already breaching the old 25% cap by having 40 & 49% foreign holdings.DTAC & Orange had also criticised the government heavily for not increasing the cap earlier.

Why did he call elections then?

In response to the jealous Sonthi Lim/Dem inspired hate rallies

[whybother]

Pre-coup, Thaksin, while PM, was engaged in money laundering, so one might re-phrase that as 'Pre-coup Thaksin was doing nicely'. As I said above, there is not one forum Thaksin apologist prepared to challenge the evidence which led to Thaksin's convictions and as others have pointed out neither did Thaksin. Also, even after it has been pointed out that he was convicted under pre-coup laws, they mutter darkly about 'due process' and 'let's do it again' (presumably next time with a guaranteed result in favour of Thakin). The agenda of the Thaksin cheerleaders becomes clearer with each contribution. It is nothing less than the smashing of the judiciary system until it is supine to the wishes of Thaksin Shinawatra. Three institutions stand in the way of Thaksin's absolutism: one is the army, the second is the judiciary. The fourth, the police force he thinks is in his pocket. Be aware.

The Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the PM did not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF. Those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight andand regulations governing the agency. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act states that those commiting malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party, i.e. the FIDF. That is the law.

That would have changed when the government took control of the FIDF debt in 1997.

[Rich teacher]

Pre-coup, Thaksin, while PM, was engaged in money laundering, so one might re-phrase that as 'Pre-coup Thaksin was doing nicely'. As I said above, there is not one forum Thaksin apologist prepared to challenge the evidence which led to Thaksin's convictions and as others have pointed out neither did Thaksin. Also, even after it has been pointed out that he was convicted under pre-coup laws, they mutter darkly about 'due process' and 'let's do it again' (presumably next time with a guaranteed result in favour of Thakin). The agenda of the Thaksin cheerleaders becomes clearer with each contribution. It is nothing less than the smashing of the judiciary system until it is supine to the wishes of Thaksin Shinawatra. Three institutions stand in the way of Thaksin's absolutism: one is the army, the second is the judiciary. The fourth, the police force he thinks is in his pocket. Be aware.

The Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the PM did not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF. Those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight andand regulations governing the agency. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act states that those commiting malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party, i.e. the FIDF. That is the law.

That would have changed when the government took control of the FIDF debt in 1997.

No that was the standing law when TS was charged and convicted. The assumption of debt had no bearing on the law regarding the continuing operation of the fund.

[scorecard]

Pre-coup, the country was at a political stale mate.

Thaksin called elections only 12 months after a land slide win, so he could justify changing the laws to enable the sale of his company without paying tax. The elections failed to produce a result, and were mired with electoral fraud. The new elections were expected to be further delayed because of the replacement of election commission.

That doesn't sound like "doing nicely".

He sold Shin Corp before calling the election. The laws that were changed had been proposed since 2001 and followed criticism by Abhisit that Thaksin had not sufficiently opened up the Thai telecommunications sector to foreigners. The sale was also after years of heated demands by many public groups calling for the Shinawatras complete sale of Shin Corp, so Thaksin would not have a conflict of interests. At the time the law was passed DTAC and Orange were already breaching the old 25% cap by having 40 & 49% foreign holdings.DTAC & Orange had also criticised the government heavily for not increasing the cap earlier.

Why did he call elections then?

In response to the jealous Sonthi Lim/Dem inspired hate rallies

There was quite some amount of very anti Thaksin rhetoric at these rallies.

Others would also call it telling the populace some realistic home truths.

[rubl]

FIDF was established on November 27th, 1985 through the enactment of an Emergency Decree regulating the Affairs of the Bank of Thailand. It is a separate juristic entity from the Bank of Thailand. The objective of FIDF is to relax BOT's limitation in implementing financial-support measures for rehabilitation and development of the financial institutions to maintain stability in the Thai financial system. FIDF has been specifically endorsed by BOT to support distressed financial institution in broader scope.

Financial Institutions Development Fund (a separate juristic institution managed by Bank of Thailand). The Ministry of Finance guarantees FIDF Bonds.

The FIDF board, which includes two or three senior officials from the Finance Ministry, representatives from the Office of the Council of State and Attorney-General's Office.

Bangkok, the 7th of October 2010: Bank of Thailand (BoT) Deputy Governor Mrs. Thong-urai Limpiti, acting as fund manager, said that the FIDF board resolved not to appeal the court ruling on advice from the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) and the central bank’s legal department.

Now let's see, totally independent, should be clear to all

[Rich teacher]

FIDF was established on November 27th, 1985 through the enactment of an Emergency Decree regulating the Affairs of the Bank of Thailand. It is a separate juristic entity from the Bank of Thailand. The objective of FIDF is to relax BOT's limitation in implementing financial-support measures for rehabilitation and development of the financial institutions to maintain stability in the Thai financial system. FIDF has been specifically endorsed by BOT to support distressed financial institution in broader scope.

Financial Institutions Development Fund (a separate juristic institution managed by Bank of Thailand). The Ministry of Finance guarantees FIDF Bonds.

The FIDF board, which includes two or three senior officials from the Finance Ministry, representatives from the Office of the Council of State and Attorney-General's Office.

Bangkok, the 7th of October 2010: Bank of Thailand (BoT) Deputy Governor Mrs. Thong-urai Limpiti, acting as fund manager, said that the FIDF board resolved not to appeal the court ruling on advice from the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) and the central bank's legal department.

Now let's see, totally independent, should be clear to all

very unclear

What is though clear is that the law at the time of TS's conviction said the PM had no juridstiction over the FIDF

[rubl]

FIDF was established on November 27th, 1985 through the enactment of an Emergency Decree regulating the Affairs of the Bank of Thailand. It is a separate juristic entity from the Bank of Thailand. The objective of FIDF is to relax BOT's limitation in implementing financial-support measures for rehabilitation and development of the financial institutions to maintain stability in the Thai financial system. FIDF has been specifically endorsed by BOT to support distressed financial institution in broader scope.

Financial Institutions Development Fund (a separate juristic institution managed by Bank of Thailand). The Ministry of Finance guarantees FIDF Bonds.

The FIDF board, which includes two or three senior officials from the Finance Ministry, representatives from the Office of the Council of State and Attorney-General's Office.

Bangkok, the 7th of October 2010: Bank of Thailand (BoT) Deputy Governor Mrs. Thong-urai Limpiti, acting as fund manager, said that the FIDF board resolved not to appeal the court ruling on advice from the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) and the central bank's legal department.

Now let's see, totally independent, should be clear to all

very unclear

What is though clear is that the law at the time of TS's conviction said the PM had no juridstiction over the FIDF

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

[Rich teacher]

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

Yes but what was the law. No need to give a whole lot of extraneous details. The law is clear, It states the "PM does not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF" and that "persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party"

[rubl]

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

Yes but what was the law. No need to give a whole lot of extraneous details. The law is clear, It states the "PM does not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF" and that "persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party"

The law whhich applies you say is from 1942. As the FIDF was founded in 1985 I doubt the 1942 names the FIDF. As for other quotes, tell the court which judged the case against k. Thaksin. It seems lots of people like to say 'politically motivated', but it is very seldom anyone comes close to indicating why the verdict was legally wrong. You, my dear 'rich teacher', do not convince.

Maybe you should start with quoting the complete law from 1942 which you say still applied.

Of course all this is apart from a PM being involved in dodgy deals which as PM he should stand above. Being too rich to need to be corrupt should also mean being able to refrain from business for the time being. With in Thailand the wife depending on her husband for some legal activities, k. Thaksin should have desisted to avoid mixing his legal responsibilities and accountability with business deals done by his legal wife.

[Tatsujin]

Of course all this is apart from a PM being involved in dodgy deals which as PM he should stand above. Being too rich to need to be corrupt should also mean being able to refrain from business for the time being. With in Thailand the wife depending on her husband for some legal activities, k. Thaksin should have desisted to avoid mixing his legal responsibilities and accountability with business deals done by his legal wife.

Couldn't agree more, but as we can all see, Thai's don't get into Politics for the sake of the 'people', they get into it to screw more money out of the 'people' and feather their own nests even further.

[rubl]

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

Yes but what was the law. No need to give a whole lot of extraneous details. The law is clear, It states the "PM does not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF" and that "persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party"

Terribly sorry, I forgot to add this. My mistake, please excuse me

"Thaksin was found guilty of violating articles 4, 100 and 122 of the National Counter Corruption Commission law which bar holders of public office and their spouses from entering into a contract with the state."

[OzMick]

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

Yes but what was the law. No need to give a whole lot of extraneous details. The law is clear, It states the "PM does not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF" and that "persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party"

IF you are correct, then there would be excellent grounds for an appeal rather than a bribe. It seems the defendant didn't agree with you.

I'm still waiting for you to explain (apologies if I missed it) your deep concern about the conviction of a criminal who has committed many more serious crimes and which have not yet faced court. Are you a jurist purist, or a crim's camp follower?

[OzMick]

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Went back to check - nope, no explanation for your own bias.

Thaksin's thefts from the people of Thailand go back to include his computer contract with the police, which he wrote the specs for and his father-in-law awarded to him while still serving as BIB. His crony Chalerm awarded him a cable TV licence as soon as he took office. Then he was given a monopoly on the fastest growing business in the world, and AIS systematically overcharged the Thai people for years - the basis of his current wealth. Then the capital gains scam, plus all the other backhanders we have yet to discover.

Why do you grovel in the service of a little tin god?

[Tatsujin]

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Went back to check - nope, no explanation for your own bias.

Thaksin's thefts from the people of Thailand go back to include his computer contract with the police, which he wrote the specs for and his father-in-law awarded to him while still serving as BIB. His crony Chalerm awarded him a cable TV licence as soon as he took office. Then he was given a monopoly on the fastest growing business in the world, and AIS systematically overcharged the Thai people for years - the basis of his current wealth. Then the capital gains scam, plus all the other backhanders we have yet to discover.

Why do you grovel in the service of a little tin god?

+1

[Buchholz]

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Pre-coup, Thaksin, while PM, was engaged in money laundering, so one might re-phrase that as 'Pre-coup Thaksin was doing nicely'. As I said above, there is not one forum Thaksin apologist prepared to challenge the evidence which led to Thaksin's convictions and as others have pointed out neither did Thaksin. Also, even after it has been pointed out that he was convicted under pre-coup laws, they mutter darkly about 'due process' and 'let's do it again' (presumably next time with a guaranteed result in favour of Thakin). The agenda of the Thaksin cheerleaders becomes clearer with each contribution. It is nothing less than the smashing of the judiciary system until it is supine to the wishes of Thaksin Shinawatra. Three institutions stand in the way of Thaksin's absolutism: one is the army, the second is the judiciary. The fourth, the police force he thinks is in his pocket. Be aware.

"I'm no fan of Thaksin, but...pre-coup the country was doing nicely"

Edited October 21, 2012 by Buchholz

[Ricardo]

Why did he call elections then?

In response to the jealous Sonthi Lim/Dem inspired hate rallies

It must have been really upsetting, after six years of being-in-power, to have someone exposing some the things which were going-wrong under PM-Thaksin & Thai-Rak-Thai ! Even worse when this came from a disillusioned former friend and ally.

Unfortunately the Big Mans' prediction that TRT would be in-power for twenty more years turned-out to be wrong.

Always a mistake to believe one's own propaganda, but a common mistake, amongst dellusional tin-pot would-be dictators !

Any democracy needs an occasional change-of-power, to keep the politicians slightly-more honest, IMO. Otherwise they get too comfortable, and confident in their own abilities to fool the sheeple, and blatant in their corruption. This goes for any Thai political-party, not just TRT/PPP/PTP.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Ricardo

[Rich teacher]

I have no problems being biased against a thief of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand. I know not only the details, but the interesting parts like the bribery attempt when the evidence was against him, the granting of bail and fleeing the country, the lack of an appeal, and the claims of political motivation in a criminal case - who cares about the motivation when he is guilty?

So could you please explain your apparent bias?

The 'thieves of monumental amounts of money from the people of Thailand' if you look at any figures were the instigators and backers of the 2006 coup. Thailand has been unable to climb out of the mess and hatred caused by that self- serving unconstitutional act. Pre-coup the country was doing nicely, but the problem was it was coming at the expense of the army budget, Democrats power base and Bangkok elites stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Went back to check - nope, no explanation for your own bias.

Thaksin's thefts from the people of Thailand go back to include his computer contract with the police, which he wrote the specs for and his father-in-law awarded to him while still serving as BIB. His crony Chalerm awarded him a cable TV licence as soon as he took office. Then he was given a monopoly on the fastest growing business in the world, and AIS systematically overcharged the Thai people for years - the basis of his current wealth. Then the capital gains scam, plus all the other backhanders we have yet to discover.

Why do you grovel in the service of a little tin god?

+1

Your time scale is way off

[Rich teacher]

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

Yes but what was the law. No need to give a whole lot of extraneous details. The law is clear, It states the "PM does not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF" and that "persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party"

Terribly sorry, I forgot to add this. My mistake, please excuse me

"Thaksin was found guilty of violating articles 4, 100 and 122 of the National Counter Corruption Commission law which bar holders of public office and their spouses from entering into a contract with the state."

No, Rubi. I realise it may be difficult for a non-native English speaker to grasp the subtleties of our language but Section 4 of the NCCC Act clearly states that those commiting malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party.

[rubl]

The Finance Minister delivered FIDF board members, the Finance minister guaranteed FIDF loans. The Finance minister reports to the PM (a.o.). So we have a separate juridical entry which is basicly controlled by the PM.

Yes but what was the law. No need to give a whole lot of extraneous details. The law is clear, It states the "PM does not have juridstiction to oversee the FIDF" and that "persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party"

Terribly sorry, I forgot to add this. My mistake, please excuse me

"Thaksin was found guilty of violating articles 4, 100 and 122 of the National Counter Corruption Commission law which bar holders of public office and their spouses from entering into a contract with the state."

No, Rubi. I realise it may be difficult for a non-native English speaker to grasp the subtleties of our language but Section 4 of the NCCC Act clearly states that those commiting malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party.

Amongst educated people I will for once refrain (but barely) from saying BS, but I do detect the odour around the nightsoil of a well-fed male oxen. Although as you suggest I'm a non-native English speaker, I think in this case it is the teacher who has to do some reading again.

May I suggest you have a look at the following with emphasis on section 4, 100 and 122 which were expressly mentioned by the court which convicted k. Thaksin ?

http://www.thailawon...-2542-1999.html

[Tatsujin]

Your time scale is way off

How . . . ?