Chalerm Rules Out Thaksin Extradition

[Tatsujin]

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.

Not sure where YOU learned English Rich Teacher, but if you read the Act yourself, it's plain as day that Mr T acted improperly and THAT was what he was charged and convicted of. There are no subtleties of language to confuse anyone, it's stated very clearly what is not acceptable or allowed.

[rubl]

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.

Not sure where YOU learned English Rich Teacher, but if you read the Act yourself, it's plain as day that Mr T acted improperly and THAT was what he was charged and convicted of. There are no subtleties of language to confuse anyone, it's stated very clearly what is not acceptable or allowed.

It's interesting to find a foreigner well versed in the finer details of Thai law who tries to explain that the judges of the court who judged k. Thaksin guilty made a legal mistake. From what I've read most Thai opponents only stress 'political motivated', 'court biased', 'army initiated', and the like. No complaint about the reasoning and sections of the law applied.

BTW the "non native English" reference was either a slip of the tongue or maybe our teacher read/heard it from phiphidon

[Rich teacher]

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.

Not sure where YOU learned English Rich Teacher, but if you read the Act yourself, it's plain as day that Mr T acted improperly and THAT was what he was charged and convicted of. There are no subtleties of language to confuse anyone, it's stated very clearly what is not acceptable or allowed.

It's interesting to find a foreigner well versed in the finer details of Thai law who tries to explain that the judges of the court who judged k. Thaksin guilty made a legal mistake. From what I've read most Thai opponents only stress 'political motivated', 'court biased', 'army initiated', and the like. No complaint about the reasoning and sections of the law applied.

BTW the "non native English" reference was either a slip of the tongue or maybe our teacher read/heard it from phiphidon

Let's break this down;

1. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF

2. 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.

[davidstipek]

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.

Not sure where YOU learned English Rich Teacher, but if you read the Act yourself, it's plain as day that Mr T acted improperly and THAT was what he was charged and convicted of. There are no subtleties of language to confuse anyone, it's stated very clearly what is not acceptable or allowed.

It's interesting to find a foreigner well versed in the finer details of Thai law who tries to explain that the judges of the court who judged k. Thaksin guilty made a legal mistake. From what I've read most Thai opponents only stress 'political motivated', 'court biased', 'army initiated', and the like. No complaint about the reasoning and sections of the law applied.

BTW the "non native English" reference was either a slip of the tongue or maybe our teacher read/heard it from phiphidon

Let's break this down;

1. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF

2. 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.

Jeeze...

If the offense is listed on the main page of the ACT... "LAW" (Which it is...) then you do not need to go further to any Sub Sections. These are there to futher classify anything "NOT SPELLED OUT" in any Act.

Any Government Official is strictly forbidden to counter sign for spouse, She as Wife of is also forbidden to submit.. she would need his signature... he is forbidden to sign... correct??? The statute was broken (or Law, or Act) before you even got to any Sub Sections of the Act...

anyone want to rebutt this??

The other statement that was off by maybe 270 degrees is Where somebody who is foreigner gets well versed in Thai Law??? Well first thing is he is not taught that Corruption, Bribery or Collusion are not the the correct ways of Life (Life) If you are raised taught that these are the correct way of life.... How are you going to think and act as an Adult???

Example:

what starts with letter "A" and Letter "B"

A = Face (as in Saving Face)

B = Money

wrong! Maybe this is closer...

A = Arse

who thinks...

B = Bribe

Is the correct way to get Pocket Change or to buy a New Pink....

If he does think this is correct, I am sure even the Temple would refuse his weekly donation! No matter how big it is!!

I think the following Idea sums it all up....

I don't like that Law... So I will ignor it!.... When one is written that fits "MY THINKING" maybe I will concider using it.... (Who raised him to think is the correct way to be a Gevernment Official??)

Edited October 22, 2012 by davidstipek

[Rich teacher]

Jeeze...

If the offense is listed on the main page of the ACT... "LAW" (Which it is...) then you do not need to go further to any Sub Sections. These are there to futher classify anything "NOT SPELLED OUT" in any Act.

Any Government Official is strictly forbidden to counter sign for spouse, She as Wife of is also forbidden to submit.. she would need his signature... he is forbidden to sign... correct??? anyone want to rebutt this??

No Richard, please refer the relevant statutes. Noone is interested in your 'opinion'.

[rubl]

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.

Not sure where YOU learned English Rich Teacher, but if you read the Act yourself, it's plain as day that Mr T acted improperly and THAT was what he was charged and convicted of. There are no subtleties of language to confuse anyone, it's stated very clearly what is not acceptable or allowed.

It's interesting to find a foreigner well versed in the finer details of Thai law who tries to explain that the judges of the court who judged k. Thaksin guilty made a legal mistake. From what I've read most Thai opponents only stress 'political motivated', 'court biased', 'army initiated', and the like. No complaint about the reasoning and sections of the law applied.

BTW the "non native English" reference was either a slip of the tongue or maybe our teacher read/heard it from phiphidon

Let's break this down;

1. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF

2. 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.

Section 4 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption says nothing about 'direct supervision'. It defines 'state officials' and 'political position' and

""alleged culprit" means the person who is alleged to have committed, or who is under the circumstance apparent to the National Counter Corruption Commission as indicating the commission of, an act which prima facie constitutes a basis for the removal from office, the criminal proceedings, the lodging of a request that assets devolve on the State or the initiation of a disciplinary action as provided in this Organic Act, and shall also include the principal, instigator or aider and abetter in the commission of the said act;"

""corruption" means the performance or omission of a particular act in office or in the course of official duty, or the performance or omission of a particular act under the circumstance likely to cause other persons to believe that the person so performing or omitting holds such office or has such duty although the office or duty is not held or assumed by such person, or the exercise of power in office or in the course official duty with a view to acquiring undue benefits for his or her own or for other persons;"

Section 100 mentions the fatal

"where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;"

and

"The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official."

Section 122 just lists the possible penalties

"Any State official who violates the provisions of Section 100, Section 101 or Section 103 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht or to both.

In the case of an offence under Section 100 paragraph three, if any State official proves that he or she has not connived at his or her spouse's carrying out the activities under Section 100 paragraph one, it shall be deemed that such person is not guilty of the offence."

With the PM controlling the Minister of Finance and that person controlling/supervising/counter signing the FIDF the court deemed the accused guilty.

Now if you think you have good, solid legal reasons with which you can prove the court was mistaken, I suggest to have a talk with them. As far as I know you'd be the first foreigner to try to 'teach' them the finer details of Thai law.

[Rich teacher]

Section 4 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption says nothing about 'direct supervision'. It defines 'state officials' and 'political position' and

""alleged culprit" means the person who is alleged to have committed, or who is under the circumstance apparent to the National Counter Corruption Commission as indicating the commission of, an act which prima facie constitutes a basis for the removal from office, the criminal proceedings, the lodging of a request that assets devolve on the State or the initiation of a disciplinary action as provided in this Organic Act, and shall also include the principal, instigator or aider and abetter in the commission of the said act;"

""corruption" means the performance or omission of a particular act in office or in the course of official duty, or the performance or omission of a particular act under the circumstance likely to cause other persons to believe that the person so performing or omitting holds such office or has such duty although the office or duty is not held or assumed by such person, or the exercise of power in office or in the course official duty with a view to acquiring undue benefits for his or her own or for other persons;"

Section 100 mentions the fatal

"where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;"

and

"The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official."

Section 122 just lists the possible penalties

"Any State official who violates the provisions of Section 100, Section 101 or Section 103 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht or to both.

In the case of an offence under Section 100 paragraph three, if any State official proves that he or she has not connived at his or her spouse's carrying out the activities under Section 100 paragraph one, it shall be deemed that such person is not guilty of the offence."

With the PM controlling the Minister of Finance and that person controlling/supervising/counter signing the FIDF the court deemed the accused guilty.

Now if you think you have good, solid legal reasons with which you can prove the court was mistaken, I suggest to have a talk with them. As far as I know you'd be the first foreigner to try to 'teach' them the finer details of Thai law.

Google translate has failed you badly here Rubi. That post is gobbledyggok or perhaps double-Dutch, I can't work it out

[whybother]

Let's break this down;

1. Section 4 of the National Counter Corruption Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF

2. 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.

How did the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 refer to an entity that didn't exist?

[rubl]

Section 4 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption says nothing about 'direct supervision'. It defines 'state officials' and 'political position' and

""alleged culprit" means the person who is alleged to have committed, or who is under the circumstance apparent to the National Counter Corruption Commission as indicating the commission of, an act which prima facie constitutes a basis for the removal from office, the criminal proceedings, the lodging of a request that assets devolve on the State or the initiation of a disciplinary action as provided in this Organic Act, and shall also include the principal, instigator or aider and abetter in the commission of the said act;"

""corruption" means the performance or omission of a particular act in office or in the course of official duty, or the performance or omission of a particular act under the circumstance likely to cause other persons to believe that the person so performing or omitting holds such office or has such duty although the office or duty is not held or assumed by such person, or the exercise of power in office or in the course official duty with a view to acquiring undue benefits for his or her own or for other persons;"

Section 100 mentions the fatal

"where such State official performs duties in the capacity as a State official who has the power to conduct supervision, control, inspection or legal proceedings;"

and

"The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two. For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official."

Section 122 just lists the possible penalties

"Any State official who violates the provisions of Section 100, Section 101 or Section 103 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht or to both.

In the case of an offence under Section 100 paragraph three, if any State official proves that he or she has not connived at his or her spouse's carrying out the activities under Section 100 paragraph one, it shall be deemed that such person is not guilty of the offence."

With the PM controlling the Minister of Finance and that person controlling/supervising/counter signing the FIDF the court deemed the accused guilty.

Now if you think you have good, solid legal reasons with which you can prove the court was mistaken, I suggest to have a talk with them. As far as I know you'd be the first foreigner to try to 'teach' them the finer details of Thai law.

Google translate has failed you badly here Rubi. That post is gobbledyggok or perhaps double-Dutch, I can't work it out

Since most is a direct quote of the Organic Act you might want to lodge a complaint at the website I took it from ( http://www.thailawon...-2542-1999.html ).

Did you already make an appointment with the Supreme Court to explain to them the error of their ways and their total misunderstanding of the finer details of Thai law?

[Scott]

An off-topic, baiting post has been deleted.

Please stay on topic and exercise care in making reference to the Courts and the decisions they have made.

[TruthEyes]

As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup.

And as has been demonstrated on several national and international fronts, democratic thinking minds agree with him.

[whybother]

As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup.

And as has been demonstrated on several national and international fronts, democratic thinking minds agree with him.

The charges might stem from the coup, but that doesn't mean that Thaksin didn't deserve them.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[TruthEyes]

As a democracy supporter I find it impossible to justify how anybody deserves allegations from a Militay Junta Dictatorship.

It is the Military Junta Dictatorship itself that is undeserving, and the democratic society have recognised that

[FOODLOVER]

As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup.

And as has been demonstrated on several national and international fronts, democratic thinking minds agree with him.

"As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup".

You apparently don't know jack squat about the law.

[Rich teacher]

As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup.

And as has been demonstrated on several national and international fronts, democratic thinking minds agree with him.

"As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup".

You apparently don't know jack squat about the law.

Well, unlike you, he has realized that the coup itself was against the law

[FOODLOVER]

As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup.

And as has been demonstrated on several national and international fronts, democratic thinking minds agree with him.

"As Chalerm quite correctly and lawfully stated, all charges against Taksin S stem from the 2006 Military Junta Coup".

You apparently don't know jack squat about the law.

Well, unlike you, he has realized that the coup itself was against the law

What about the laws he broke before the coup?

[Roadman]

As a democracy supporter I find it impossible to justify how anybody deserves allegations from a Militay Junta Dictatorship.

It is the Military Junta Dictatorship itself that is undeserving, and the democratic society have recognised that

What is obvious to me as a democracy supporter is that while the constitution at times might have been under reset of a military junta, criminal law is still criminal law, and Thaksin was rightly, (and quite overdue for any of his early 2000's crimes that he abused the law by even under that era's constitution} punished while one of his own parties was in power.

And a dictatorship is when power is seized/unlawfully taken with the intent to keep total control (much as what Thaksin has planned for his Shinawatra Dynasty), as oppossed as what the Royal Thai Army did which was intervene to assist Thailand to remove a scum bag who was doing then again what he is trying to do now (as is seen with every senior appointment that is coming out - Shinwatra family and friends yah PT democracy), then reset the constitution which was approved by the people, and gave the whole lot back to the politicial mafia families to fight their way to their trough spots yet again.

[Rich teacher]

What about the laws he broke before the coup?

Please remind me of which ones he has been convicted of

[FOODLOVER]

What about the laws he broke before the coup?

Please remind me of which ones he has been convicted of

No thanks, dog takes a poop about this time. Much more exciting than hearing how ethical your man is. You know Tslanford used to answer my posts to others as well. Relations?

[whybother]

What about the laws he broke before the coup?

Please remind me of which ones he has been convicted of

He ran away before he could be tried for his 7 or 8 outstanding charges.

[FarangTalk]

Incredible that some posters believe that by staging a coup the Thai Army and their backers were acting in the interests of the country.

Base naivete and lack of knowledge about Thai history or willful ignorance spurred by an obsessive hatred of Thaksin?

[whybother]

Incredible that some posters believe that by staging a coup the Thai Army and their backers were acting in the interests of the country.

Base naivete and lack of knowledge about Thai history or willful ignorance spurred by an obsessive hatred of Thaksin?

Is the coup actually relevant any more? It happened. Then there were elections. Move on.

[rubl]

What about the laws he broke before the coup?

Please remind me of which ones he has been convicted of

The one you've been trying to convince me the court made a mistake

[jayboy]

Is the coup actually relevant any more? It happened. Then there were elections. Move on.

Keen to "move on" but still obsessed with Thaksin.

I believe future historians will consider the last military coup as the death blow of the old unelected elites.

That well known communist agitator, Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, would also disagree with you about the relevance of the coup.

http://www.forbes.co...r-and-thailand/

Money quote

"Thailand itself transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. Regular and rambunctious elections are held, but the army continues to stage coups whenever it considers the government unreliable or going against the monarchy. Over the last 80 years there have been 11 successful coups and 7 failed ones. The most recent was the ouster of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in September 2006. The military’s interference has resulted in a perpetual state of political uncertainty and has shaken investor confidence."

Edited October 23, 2012 by jayboy

[rubl]

Is the coup actually relevant any more? It happened. Then there were elections. Move on.

Keen to "move on" but still obsessed with Thaksin.

I believe future historians will consider the last military coup as the death blow of the old unelected elites.

That well known communist agitator, Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, would also disagree with you about the relevance of the coup.

http://www.forbes.co...r-and-thailand/

Money quote

"Thailand itself transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. Regular and rambunctious elections are held, but the army continues to stage coups whenever it considers the government unreliable or going against the monarchy. Over the last 80 years there have been 11 successful coups and 7 failed ones. The most recent was the ouster of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in September 2006. The military’s interference has resulted in a perpetual state of political uncertainty and has shaken investor confidence."

The article also quotes LKY saying

"Thailand became a free-market economy, open to all investments from all countries, and it absorbed its Chinese immigrants, who had arrived during and after British rule. Today Thailand is one of Asia’s busiest manufacturing hubs."

and

"it was the open-door policies of free trade and investment that made Thailand prosperous"

[whybother]

Is the coup actually relevant any more? It happened. Then there were elections. Move on.

Keen to "move on" but still obsessed with Thaksin.

I believe future historians will consider the last military coup as the death blow of the old unelected elites.

That well known communist agitator, Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, would also disagree with you about the relevance of the coup.

http://www.forbes.co...r-and-thailand/

Money quote

"Thailand itself transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. Regular and rambunctious elections are held, but the army continues to stage coups whenever it considers the government unreliable or going against the monarchy. Over the last 80 years there have been 11 successful coups and 7 failed ones. The most recent was the ouster of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in September 2006. The military’s interference has resulted in a perpetual state of political uncertainty and has shaken investor confidence."

"Move on from the (2006) coup" - Yes, because the coup happened, and elections have happened.

"Move on from Thaksin" - No, because he is still sticking his nose in. When he moves on, people who don't like him can move on.

"Move on from military interference" - At the moment, the military don't seem to be interfering in things (aside from general corruption). Start moving on, but be wary.

[jayboy]

Is the coup actually relevant any more? It happened. Then there were elections. Move on.

Keen to "move on" but still obsessed with Thaksin.

I believe future historians will consider the last military coup as the death blow of the old unelected elites.

That well known communist agitator, Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, would also disagree with you about the relevance of the coup.

http://www.forbes.co...r-and-thailand/

Money quote

"Thailand itself transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. Regular and rambunctious elections are held, but the army continues to stage coups whenever it considers the government unreliable or going against the monarchy. Over the last 80 years there have been 11 successful coups and 7 failed ones. The most recent was the ouster of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in September 2006. The military’s interference has resulted in a perpetual state of political uncertainty and has shaken investor confidence."

"Move on from the (2006) coup" - Yes, because the coup happened, and elections have happened.

"Move on from Thaksin" - No, because he is still sticking his nose in. When he moves on, people who don't like him can move on.

"Move on from military interference" - At the moment, the military don't seem to be interfering in things (aside from general corruption). Start moving on, but be wary.

You simply regurgitate the same sentiment as before.Everybody should move on except for those that detest Thaksin.

I was amused by your peculiar comment that the military don't seem to be interfering at the moment.Rather like having Jimmy Savile as a permanent house guest on the basis that it's been some time since he interfered with ones daughter.

As for Thaksin "sticking his nose in" it may have escaped your attention that parties representing his interests keep on winning general elections.I would have thought that gives him a right, perhaps even a duty and responsibility, to remain involved - if at a distance.

[whybother]

You simply regurgitate the same sentiment as before.Everybody should move on except for those that detest Thaksin.

I was amused by your peculiar comment that the military don't seem to be interfering at the moment.Rather like having Jimmy Savile as a permanent house guest on the basis that it's been some time since he interfered with ones daughter.

As for Thaksin "sticking his nose in" it may have escaped your attention that parties representing his interests keep on winning general elections.I would have thought that gives him a right, perhaps even a duty and responsibility, to remain involved - if at a distance.

So how can anyone move on from Thaksin if he remains involved?

[TruthEyes]

Whichever way you look at it,

Taksin S gave the thai nation democracy, the military junta dictatorship took it from them, but Taksin S gave it back again.

For sure Taksin S will be judged in thai and international history as the "founding-father of thai democracy"

A sort of thai George Washington.

Its that magnitude of a moment in time.

[FOODLOVER]

Whichever way you look at it,

Taksin S gave the thai nation democracy, the military junta dictatorship took it from them, but Taksin S gave it back again.

For sure Taksin S will be judged in thai and international history as the "founding-father of thai democracy"

A sort of thai George Washington.

Its that magnitude of a moment in time.

good one!