Thailand's D S I Calls In Democrat M Ps Over Party Donations

[thaicbr]

The DSI's Pol Colonel Niran Adulyasak, chief investigator in the case, said the DSI viewed the offence as a "technical" one.

"It's as if the law says you must step out of the house left-foot first; if you step out right-foot first, then you've broken the law,'' he said.

, just

Perhaps they should investigate things with more serious implications, like when Thaksin threatened to withhold MPs allowances if they didn't do as he said.

Fat chance of that happening, though.

Apart from an article in the Nation that fleetingly mentioned the supposition that Thaksin said allowances would be cut

From issuing orders to MPs and ministers to threatening to cut down their role or cut their allowances if their performance falls short of his expectations, Thaksin showed them he was running the show http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thaksin-still-very-much-the-CEO-of-this-govt-30201913.html

do you have any proof that this is what he said? Or is this going to be another "Thaksin Quote" which will be set in stone and quoted on this forum as if they were his very words?

Muttley..

Do you have any proof that he DIDN'T say it!

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[OzMick]

I find it interesting that Democrat MPs make donations TO their party (and strangely employer deductions are an illegal method) while it seems PTP members receive allowances FROM their party (allegedly). If the major contributor to that party happens to be a wealthy fugitive criminal who is allowed to dictate orders to those MPs, why is this not vote-selling, an illegal act in most democracies?

Edited April 24, 2013 by OzMick

[muttley]

The discussion here reminds me of a similar discussion I had with a departed member. It was about k. Thaksin allegedly talking with terrorist parties in Malaysia. No proof? Took 11 months for the parties concerned to admit that talks had taken place.

Fortunately our criminal fugitive is skyping a lot. Anonymous remarks on donations abound. for the time being DSI states not sufficient proof to investigate and refers to TV member muttley to support their view.

Not quite,rubl. I really can't see the link between alleged verbatim reports of skype calls and a thread about Thaksin allegedly talking to insurgents.

I've looked into that "incident" - Thaksin denied talking to the "insurgents" and that it was his opinion that it would be better to hold talks with the Malysians. However Abhisit and the Dems insisted they had "photographic proof" of this meeting and would produce it in a "day or so". Of course this never appeared - another lie misrepresentation of the truth from Abhisit.

This is not to say that there wasn't representations from either of the governments (Dem and Thaksin) in the past (it has recently been revealed that while Thatcher was denying vehemently of any contact with the IRA during the Hunger Strikes there were active talks going on)

but they didn't involve Thaksin face to face. Think about it, he's a well known guy who's every moves are known and then he says

"I know what I can do, I'll just slip into the jungle for a while to talk to some insurgents - no-one will know, oh look someone has just taken my picture, I'll ask for a copy to hang up next to my mate that other well known terrorist (according to Thatcher) Nelson Mandela.

"Anonymous remarks on donations abound. for the time being DSI states not sufficient proof to investigate and refers to TV member muttley to support their view."

Got proof for that statement?

[muttley]

The DSI's Pol Colonel Niran Adulyasak, chief investigator in the case, said the DSI viewed the offence as a "technical" one.

"It's as if the law says you must step out of the house left-foot first; if you step out right-foot first, then you've broken the law,'' he said.

, just

Perhaps they should investigate things with more serious implications, like when Thaksin threatened to withhold MPs allowances if they didn't do as he said.

Fat chance of that happening, though.

Apart from an article in the Nation that fleetingly mentioned the supposition that Thaksin said allowances would be cut

From issuing orders to MPs and ministers to threatening to cut down their role or cut their allowances if their performance falls short of his expectations, Thaksin showed them he was running the show http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thaksin-still-very-much-the-CEO-of-this-govt-30201913.html

do you have any proof that this is what he said? Or is this going to be another "Thaksin Quote" which will be set in stone and quoted on this forum as if they were his very words?

Muttley..

Do you have any proof that he DIDN'T say it!

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

Not at all, but then I'm not the one putting the "quotes" forward as the "truth".

[Baerboxer]

The prime example of how the DSI has been compromised.

It's supposed to go after the big stuff, the sort that the ordinary police are not equipped to handle. There is surely a case here for Tarit wasting the DSI's time & taxpayers' money.

I wonder if any of the usual suspects will be stupid enough to defend this baloney.

It's an apalling waste of tax payers money, as you say. Completely politcally motivated and petty. The DSI is now a disgrace and purely a lacky for the PTP.

Presumably they have been tasked with causing as many problems as possible to opponents of the clan.

Can we assume that all donations to PTP have been checked with equal rigour and due diligence? Does the money coming from Dubai count as a donation or is it classed as salary?

I'm sure we'll get one or more of the usual suspects on soon, saying rules are rules and applauding the DSI for bringing these wanton criminals to jsutice. They usually defend all the crap like this.

If ever the unthinkable was to happen and the Democrats win a general election would the DSI change their allegiance and become the Democrats lackeys or suddenly decide that they are really " independent " ? Just a wild thought.

Is your question meant to be rhetorical? Based on the DSI leader's previous behaviour traits what do you think? Really independent - fat chance. About the same chance as PTP actually becoming a poitical party that really supports democracy, tranparency, non corrupt and respects the law. Ain't gonner happen!

[Baerboxer]

The discussion here reminds me of a similar discussion I had with a departed member. It was about k. Thaksin allegedly talking with terrorist parties in Malaysia. No proof? Took 11 months for the parties concerned to admit that talks had taken place.

Fortunately our criminal fugitive is skyping a lot. Anonymous remarks on donations abound. for the time being DSI states not sufficient proof to investigate and refers to TV member muttley to support their view.

Not quite,rubl. I really can't see the link between alleged verbatim reports of skype calls and a thread about Thaksin allegedly talking to insurgents.

I've looked into that "incident" - Thaksin denied talking to the "insurgents" and that it was his opinion that it would be better to hold talks with the Malysians. However Abhisit and the Dems insisted they had "photographic proof" of this meeting and would produce it in a "day or so". Of course this never appeared - another lie misrepresentation of the truth from Abhisit.

This is not to say that there wasn't representations from either of the governments (Dem and Thaksin) in the past (it has recently been revealed that while Thatcher was denying vehemently of any contact with the IRA during the Hunger Strikes there were active talks going on)

but they didn't involve Thaksin face to face. Think about it, he's a well known guy who's every moves are known and then he says

"I know what I can do, I'll just slip into the jungle for a while to talk to some insurgents - no-one will know, oh look someone has just taken my picture, I'll ask for a copy to hang up next to my mate that other well known terrorist (according to Thatcher) Nelson Mandela.

>"Anonymous remarks on donations abound. for the time being DSI states not sufficient proof to investigate and refers to TV member muttley to support their view."

Got proof for that statement?

Yes - some former "terrorists" do take advantage of amnesties and enter politics. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in this complex dynamic global world. Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Mahatma Ghandi and Chairman Mao to name a few. Depends on which side of the fence you are at the time. And some behave differently to others when in power of course.

However, I'm not sure the same amnesties have been offered to convicted criminal fugitves who are on the run from a prison sentence and facing other outstanding criminal charges.

Interesting how dictators and "wannabee" dictators all love to use "the law" to hound and intimidate opponents - whilst ignoring it themselves. Seems they all share this idea.

[muttley]

I find it interesting that Democrat MPs make donations TO their party (and strangely employer deductions are an illegal method) while it seems PTP members receive allowances FROM their party (allegedly). If the major contributor to that party happens to be a wealthy fugitive criminal who is allowed to dictate orders to those MPs, why is this not vote-selling, an illegal act in most democracies?

It's not only MP's that make donations, big business does as well. There was that little matter of a donation of 258 million baht in 2005 to the dems (limit is 10 million baht) but that was never really successfully resolved now was it (charge dumped on a technicality - a "mistake" by the head honcho of the EC)?

The PTP like all other parties can receive legally up to 100 baht of personal income tax from individuals. 2 million baht was raised that way the year before the last election http://news.voicetv.co.th/in-english/5292.html

So nothing really strange at all, a multi billionaire, along with less well off people and businesses , sponsor a political party. How is that "vote selling?"

[rubl]

A criminal fugitive 'owns' a political party, that's the difference. Mind you, that's not the topic nor the alleged 258m donation to the Democrats party which didn't have any substance unlike the 'too small election posters' which were clearly visible. The bloody cheek to ask for VAT specified in an invoice!

So, back to DSI calling in Democrats MPs to question and charge them over clear paper trail of documented party donations.

[OzMick]

I find it interesting that Democrat MPs make donations TO their party (and strangely employer deductions are an illegal method) while it seems PTP members receive allowances FROM their party (allegedly). If the major contributor to that party happens to be a wealthy fugitive criminal who is allowed to dictate orders to those MPs, why is this not vote-selling, an illegal act in most democracies?

It's not only MP's that make donations, big business does as well. There was that little matter of a donation of 258 million baht in 2005 to the dems (limit is 10 million baht) but that was never really successfully resolved now was it (charge dumped on a technicality - a "mistake" by the head honcho of the EC)?

The PTP like all other parties can receive legally up to 100 baht of personal income tax from individuals. 2 million baht was raised that way the year before the last election http://news.voicetv.co.th/in-english/5292.html

So nothing really strange at all, a multi billionaire, along with less well off people and businesses , sponsor a political party. How is that "vote selling?"

It is vote selling when the donor is allowed to set policy. Did you miss that part?

[muttley]

A criminal fugitive 'owns' a political party, that's the difference. Mind you, that's not the topic nor the alleged 258m donation to the Democrats party which didn't have any substance unlike the 'too small election posters' which were clearly visible. The bloody cheek to ask for VAT specified in an invoice!

So, back to DSI calling in Democrats MPs to question and charge them over clear paper trail of documented party donations.

Well as the man almost said in his rant above one mans "criminal fugitive" is anothers multi billionaire along with others sponsoring a political party, not unlike most political parties back in Europe. Nothing to see here.

As for the "donation" we never did get the chance to find out how "substantial" that was, did we? Thanks to the head of the EC. But no smoke without fire as people on here are fond of saying:

Out of a score of 10, Chalerm Yubamrung deserves an eight for his showmanship, oratory skills and presentation during his three-hour censure debate in parliament on Thursday. Armed with an array of charts, the veteran politician, who was tasked with leading the opposition Puea Thai party’s team of debaters, painstakingly explained the complicated money trail of the 263 million baht paid out by TPI Polene, a listed company, to the Democrat party through Messiah Business and Creation, supposedly a front company in Pathum Thani set up to cover up the donation handout.......................................................................................................... alas, the whole presentation was irrelevant to the censure debate because it concerned the Democrat party and not the government or the prime minister who should have been the real target of the debate. This explains why Mr Abhisit simply shrugged off Mr Chalerm’s censure comments and did not bother to defend the party against his allegations. He merely said that he had nothing to do with the TPI donation handout or the EC funding, noting that they took place before he led the party. http://asiancorrespondent.com/18447/tulsie-and-veera-on-the-tpi-polene-donations/

[muttley]

I find it interesting that Democrat MPs make donations TO their party (and strangely employer deductions are an illegal method) while it seems PTP members receive allowances FROM their party (allegedly). If the major contributor to that party happens to be a wealthy fugitive criminal who is allowed to dictate orders to those MPs, why is this not vote-selling, an illegal act in most democracies?

It's not only MP's that make donations, big business does as well. There was that little matter of a donation of 258 million baht in 2005 to the dems (limit is 10 million baht) but that was never really successfully resolved now was it (charge dumped on a technicality - a "mistake" by the head honcho of the EC)?

The PTP like all other parties can receive legally up to 100 baht of personal income tax from individuals. 2 million baht was raised that way the year before the last election http://news.voicetv.co.th/in-english/5292.html

So nothing really strange at all, a multi billionaire, along with less well off people and businesses , sponsor a political party. How is that "vote selling?"

It is vote selling when the donor is allowed to set policy. Did you miss that part?

I must have done - how is it he sets policy? I believe the cabinet sets policy, if he was setting it I would imagine that the first item on the agenda for when they come back would be an amnesty that includes him; not the one that is being touted that excludes him, the authorities and the red shirt leaders.

In the meantime I presume you missed the part where his political ban is now over and he is quite legally able to advise the PTP?

[OzMick]

I find it interesting that Democrat MPs make donations TO their party (and strangely employer deductions are an illegal method) while it seems PTP members receive allowances FROM their party (allegedly). If the major contributor to that party happens to be a wealthy fugitive criminal who is allowed to dictate orders to those MPs, why is this not vote-selling, an illegal act in most democracies?

It's not only MP's that make donations, big business does as well. There was that little matter of a donation of 258 million baht in 2005 to the dems (limit is 10 million baht) but that was never really successfully resolved now was it (charge dumped on a technicality - a "mistake" by the head honcho of the EC)?

The PTP like all other parties can receive legally up to 100 baht of personal income tax from individuals. 2 million baht was raised that way the year before the last election http://news.voicetv.co.th/in-english/5292.html

So nothing really strange at all, a multi billionaire, along with less well off people and businesses , sponsor a political party. How is that "vote selling?"

It is vote selling when the donor is allowed to set policy. Did you miss that part?

I must have done - how is it he sets policy? I believe the cabinet sets policy, if he was setting it I would imagine that the first item on the agenda for when they come back would be an amnesty that includes him; not the one that is being touted that excludes him, the authorities and the red shirt leaders.

In the meantime I presume you missed the part where his political ban is now over and he is quite legally able to advise the PTP?

If you wish to profess belief that Thaksin does not control PTP, try telling it to someone who believes fairy stories. The end of his political ban does not stop him from being a fugitive criminal, ineligible to join the party but given access to cabinet meetings.

Remember "Thaksin thinks, PTP jumps"?

[Tatsujin]

I wonder how many of those "bad" donations actually originated in Dubai?

None - because it is the Dems under the microscope so doubtful unless Thaksin could have course, planted a few to get DSI involved. After all this would only be petty cash to this crim.

That was what I was hinting at . . . illegal donations made to Dems to discredit them at a future date . . . i.e. now.

[Tatsujin]

I find it interesting that Democrat MPs make donations TO their party (and strangely employer deductions are an illegal method) while it seems PTP members receive allowances FROM their party (allegedly). If the major contributor to that party happens to be a wealthy fugitive criminal who is allowed to dictate orders to those MPs, why is this not vote-selling, an illegal act in most democracies?

It's not only MP's that make donations, big business does as well. There was that little matter of a donation of 258 million baht in 2005 to the dems (limit is 10 million baht) but that was never really successfully resolved now was it (charge dumped on a technicality - a "mistake" by the head honcho of the EC)?

The PTP like all other parties can receive legally up to 100 baht of personal income tax from individuals. 2 million baht was raised that way the year before the last election http://news.voicetv.co.th/in-english/5292.html

So nothing really strange at all, a multi billionaire, along with less well off people and businesses , sponsor a political party. How is that "vote selling?"

It is vote selling when the donor is allowed to set policy. Did you miss that part?

I must have done - how is it he sets policy? I believe the cabinet sets policy, if he was setting it I would imagine that the first item on the agenda for when they come back would be an amnesty that includes him; not the one that is being touted that excludes him, the authorities and the red shirt leaders.

In the meantime I presume you missed the part where his political ban is now over and he is quite legally able to advise the PTP?

Muttley, muttley, muttley . . . you still hold on to your delusions that Thaksin is whiter than white and has done no wrong and has no involvement in the running of this country from afar (or have you changed your view on that now and are saying that he actually now is because it's not illegal?).

You don't believe quoted articles from The Nation, how about this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/world/asia/thaksin-shinawatra-of-thailand-wields-influence-from-afar.html

[waza]

Democrat MP for Songkhla, Wiratana Kalayasiri, who led the other party-list MPs to hear the charge, said the case was politically motivated because Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung and his cronies had come up with a majority vote to have the DSI take up the case.

So apparently its not ok to donate part of your salary to your political party but its fine to corrupt public funds from the treasury for yourself.