Key to clip's authenticity may lie in its details: Thai politics

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Key to clip's authenticity may lie in its details
Somroutai Sapsomboon

BANGKOK: -- While it may not be possible at this point to say the leaked audio clip that is suspected to contain a conversation between former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and Deputy Defence Minister Yuthasak Sasiprapha is authentic, details in the discussion suggest that is likely to be the case.

Yuthasak may have denied it from day one, but even PM Yingluck Shinawatra said earlier this week that the clip needed to be authenticated - though she failed to assign any particular agency to carry out the task. After a long and unusual silence, Panthongtae Shinawatra eventually posted a message on his Facebook page saying that one of the two voices in the clip is that of his father, Thaksin, but he said he was not certain if it had been edited or added from another source.

Let us examine the gist of the conversation:

1. The man who sounds like Thaksin in the clip reiterates time and again that if there is any problem, the prime minister should be reported to first. The man is quoted as saying - without being gender specific - that, "If you have anything you should speak to [her] … don't let someone outside know about this first, if [she] doesn't know. [she's] sensitive on the matter because [she] has been much criticised [about it]."

2. Regarding efforts to secure a Royal decree that would grant an amnesty - including Thaksin - two people in the clip appear to refer to a Royal decree that would allow Thaksin to return home by first introducing a proposed "Royal act" - only to have the Defence Council and the National Security Council change it to a proposed Royal decree at the very last minute. The National Security Council has an aide on Thaksin's side in the shape of General Paradorn Pattanatabutr, who is secretary of the council.

The clip states that "… nobody will notice if we propose a Royal act first, but once it reaches the Defence Council, in order not to create a commotion, a Royal decree will be proposed [instead] … There should be no news announcement [when the act is proposed] to the Defence Council, but it should be noted that for the sake of speed and order, it should be proposed as a Royal decree instead. Have it said so and recorded … then the National Security Council, when the law is proposed, will record it in the form of an Act. The National Security Council can then propose the government push for a royal decree instead."

3. Regarding the reshuffle of the top brass, the man who sounds like Thaksin is told by the person suspected to be Yuthasak that "I will discuss it both with the supreme commander and the Army chief, telling them, hey, you should talk with the premier outside normal rounds of discussion … when everything is settled and the Defence Council can meet, it will be quickly done." There was also a discussion about who should replace the outgoing Navy commander who will retire this year.

4. On getting Thaksin home. The man who sounds like Thaksin says "… you made me leave [Thailand], you must get me home." In response to this, the other man says he is glad to be a "mouse" that can help a "lion".

Yuthasak was in fact chairman of the Thai Olympic Committee back in 2008, who invited Thaksin to watch the Beijing Games and evade the Ratchadapisek land verdict that would have jailed Thaksin. In fact, Thaksin never returned home after leaving for Beijing.

In the tape, the man who sounds like Thaksin also proposes that he be made an adviser to the Crown Property Bureau in order to stir up fears that he will return to politics. "As a matter of fact, I want to retire comfortably … it ends with me not playing politics."

5. The clip also touches on the perceived changing attitude of the top brass towards the prime minister - claiming that supreme commander, Gen Thanasak Patimaprakorn, is now receptive towards her.

"That supreme commander initially did not see the sense of talking to the Prime Minister. Now it's fine … I took the supreme commander to see the prime minister."

Given these conversations and more, the answer as to the authenticity of the clip may be self-explanatory.


-- The Nation 2013-07-12

[Robby nz]

From another source the minister of foot in mouth K Chalerm says that the clip has been doctored to distort some information and that parts seemed to lack coherence.

In other words he is confirming that it is authentic but that he wants people to believe that it has been changed to make it look worse than it really is.

And he wonders why he was demoted.

[bigbamboo]

In this case it's certainly true to say that the devil is in the detail.

[GentlemanJim]

Actually the key to the clips authenticity lies in the electronic signature which would be a peace of pi** for someone with the right software to do in 10 mins.

[Katipo]

Buy for time. Make ludicrous excuses. Eventually the public just through their arms up in despair and walk away. Life goes on.

[rametindallas]

'In the tape, the man who sounds like Thaksin also proposes that he be made an adviser to the Crown Property Bureau in order to stir up fears that he will return to politics. "As a matter of fact, I want to retire comfortably … it ends with me not playing politics." '

Why would the 'man who sounds like Thaksin' want to make Thaksin look good by saying 'he wanted to retire and avoid playing politics' if the tape was made to discredit Thaksin?

The 'man who sounds like Thaksin' must truly be Thaksin as he is lying about retiring and not playing politics.

[Credo]

Perhaps after having spent some time in the direct line of fire, Mr. T. will be content to simply be allowed to return, get some cushy job title and some power and manage things from behind the scenes.

He is too much of a lightening rod to be in politics again. He might be able to do it, but the cost would be very high to him, his family and the nation. Those who love him and those who hate him are best left to stew in their own juices without him being in power.

[OzMick]

I can understand why Thaksin would want to be an adviser to the Crown Property Bureau, but why would the Crown Property Bureau want a corrupt criminal on board?

[animatic]

An interesting tidbit here.

"Yuthasak was in fact chairman of the Thai Olympic Committee back in 2008, who invited Thaksin to watch the Beijing Games and evade the Ratchadapisek land verdict that would have jailed Thaksin. In fact, Thaksin never returned home after leaving for Beijing."

Someone who helped him before, but must dop it clandestinely now.

Basically this translation indicates:

Thaksin doesn't believe he can come home free

without the imprimer of official royal leave to do so.

in other words, he correctly fears assignation from some quarter would be in the cards,

unless 'the greater public' is seen to think there is ROYAL BACKING for his return,

and thus anyone attacking would be going against ROYAL wishes. Making attackers pariahs.

So really what is MOST dangerous in this clip is the attempt to involve the monarchy

in Thaksin's political intrigues and future, made most stark by the suggestion

he be made an advisor to the CrownProperty Office, ie an official royal appointment.

His arrogance knows no bounds it seems.

If this did transpire, having Thaksin in the CPB might come under the heading :

Keep you friends close, but your enemies closer. He would be observable there.

Edited July 12, 2013 by animatic

[Mampara]

Actually the key to the clips authenticity lies in the electronic signature which would be a peace of pi** for someone with the right software to do in 10 mins.

There are three things to consider.

1. to air, print, or publicise any media without prior permission of the party / person, can be deemed as an invasion of privacy, and can carry a hefty fine as well as a prison sentence.

2. to publicise any media that concerns state security, no matter how trivial, without the permission of the party involved can be considered as a capital crime, and can carry the death sentence.

3. no court civil or criminal, would accept any transcript or video as evidence, whether authentic or not or not, if the originator is not known, or can not present himself in the hearing.

[OzMick]

Actually the key to the clips authenticity lies in the electronic signature which would be a peace of pi** for someone with the right software to do in 10 mins.

There are three things to consider.

1. to air, print, or publicise any media without prior permission of the party / person, can be deemed as an invasion of privacy, and can carry a hefty fine as well as a prison sentence.

2. to publicise any media that concerns state security, no matter how trivial, without the permission of the party involved can be considered as a capital crime, and can carry the death sentence.

3. no court civil or criminal, would accept any transcript or video as evidence, whether authentic or not or not, if the originator is not known, or can not present himself in the hearing.

Such subtleties are rarely considered in the Greater Court of Public Opinion, and only a majority verdict is required.

[smutcakes]

Actually the key to the clips authenticity lies in the electronic signature which would be a peace of pi** for someone with the right software to do in 10 mins.

There are three things to consider.

1. to air, print, or publicise any media without prior permission of the party / person, can be deemed as an invasion of privacy, and can carry a hefty fine as well as a prison sentence.

2. to publicise any media that concerns state security, no matter how trivial, without the permission of the party involved can be considered as a capital crime, and can carry the death sentence.

3. no court civil or criminal, would accept any transcript or video as evidence, whether authentic or not or not, if the originator is not known, or can not present himself in the hearing.

Such subtleties are rarely considered in the Greater Court of Public Opinion, and only a majority verdict is required.

Unless you are a Thai judge, then the recorder of the clip is flushed out and persecuted whilst the contents of the clip are brushed over

[kurnell]

Who is stopping Thaksin from coming back?? Certainly not 'the law'. No cop in Thailand would dare arrest him

[Mampara]

Actually the key to the clips authenticity lies in the electronic signature which would be a peace of pi** for someone with the right software to do in 10 mins.

There are three things to consider.

1. to air, print, or publicise any media without prior permission of the party / person, can be deemed as an invasion of privacy, and can carry a hefty fine as well as a prison sentence.

2. to publicise any media that concerns state security, no matter how trivial, without the permission of the party involved can be considered as a capital crime, and can carry the death sentence.

3. no court civil or criminal, would accept any transcript or video as evidence, whether authentic or not or not, if the originator is not known, or can not present himself in the hearing.

Such subtleties are rarely considered in the Greater Court of Public Opinion, and only a majority verdict is required.

Yes, unfortunately you are quite right.

[Siripon]

There's an obvious mistranslation regarding ' to stir up fears' - I'm sure he said ' to dispel fears' ( he would return to politics).

[indyuk]

An interesting tidbit here.

"Yuthasak was in fact chairman of the Thai Olympic Committee back in 2008, who invited Thaksin to watch the Beijing Games and evade the Ratchadapisek land verdict that would have jailed Thaksin. In fact, Thaksin never returned home after leaving for Beijing."

Someone who helped him before, but must dop it clandestinely now.

Basically this translation indicates:

Thaksin doesn't believe he can come home free

without the imprimer of official royal leave to do so.

in other words, he correctly fears assignation from some quarter would be in the cards,

unless 'the greater public' is seen to think there is ROYAL BACKING for his return,

and thus anyone attacking would be going against ROYAL wishes. Making attackers pariahs.

So really what is MOST dangerous in this clip is the attempt to involve the monarchy

in Thaksin's political intrigues and future, made most stark by the suggestion

he be made an advisor to the CrownProperty Office, ie an official royal appointment.

His arrogance knows no bounds it seems.

If this did transpire, having Thaksin in the CPB might come under the heading :

Keep you friends close, but your enemies closer. He would be observable there.

Taksin is not a real criminal. The punitive nature of his conviction proves that. The fact that the court could only justify a two year sentance proves that the court saw no criminal evidence. Without evidence they were simply unable to convict him of a serious crime. God knows those that stood against him tried to concoct dasterly deeds in their imagination without covincing anyone. A two year jail sentance for a civilan offence would be credible but for the fact that the said offence was a minor indiscetion. The Justices had to add an invented crime and take 47 Billion Bart from his family for that.

Study the history and the evidential details, I defy you to find any evidence to justify your expressed view.

[boomerangutang]

Well that settles it then. I wasn't sure if it was doctored, but now if Chalerm comes out to declare it was, then I know it's not. Like his bosom buddy in Dubai, every time Chalerm makes a statement in public, we the teeming peons can be assured that the opposite is true.

[tominbkk]

Send it off to the states for independent analysis...shouldn't take more than a few days to verify voices and whether it was edited. Instead though what they are doing is spin spin spinning and hoping that something will come to take the limelight away from it.

[Ricardo]

Taksin is not a real criminal. The punitive nature of his conviction proves that. The fact that the court could only justify a two year sentance proves that the court saw no criminal evidence. Without evidence they were simply unable to convict him of a serious crime. God knows those that stood against him tried to concoct dasterly deeds in their imagination without covincing anyone. A two year jail sentance for a civilan offence would be credible but for the fact that the said offence was a minor indiscetion. The Justices had to add an invented crime and take 47 Billion Bart from his family for that.

An interesting tidbit here.

"without evidence they were simply unable to convict him"

On a point of fact, without the fugitive criminal there in court to hear the charges read, they were unable to try the several other case lined up, that's considerably different from the "unable to convict him" which you claim.

And the reason he isn't in court, is that he did a runner, which is fairly indicative of whether he thinks was innocent of the charges, or not.

[animatic]

Taksin is not a real criminal. The punitive nature of his conviction proves that. The fact that the court could only justify a two year sentance proves that the court saw no criminal evidence. Without evidence they were simply unable to convict him of a serious crime. God knows those that stood against him tried to concoct dasterly deeds in their imagination without covincing anyone. A two year jail sentance for a civilan offence would be credible but for the fact that the said offence was a minor indiscetion. The Justices had to add an invented crime and take 47 Billion Bart from his family for that.

An interesting tidbit here.

"without evidence they were simply unable to convict him"

On a point of fact, without the fugitive criminal there in court to hear the charges read, they were unable to try the several other case lined up, that's considerably different from the "unable to convict him" which you claim.

And the reason he isn't in court, is that he did a runner, which is fairly indicative of whether he thinks was innocent of the charges, or not.

He is avoiding much greater trials and out comes. He was convicted and that makes him a convicted criminal, no linguistic political slight of hand stops that.

2 years in jail is still conviction and abscondement from incarceration.

The main point being In jail for 2 years means he CAN NOT AVOID being brought into court

to acknowledge the OTHER 6 bigger cases, and then they start up.

They had evidence and they DID convict him, and he declined to file a final appeal and absconded.

Even the SC judges from his first trial in 2000 said they screwed up the verdict,

because he had politically won, and his money dodges with the family were not legal.

It is pretty pathetic to still tray an foist these old canards about him.

The legend of an innocent Thaksin Shinawatra are just that a LEGEND.

There are legends about unicorns too.

Edited July 14, 2013 by animatic